The Court held firm, arguing that, otherwise, it would be saying that each communication provider is responsible for any crime instigated by its users.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Thursday Victims of “terrorist” attacks cannot hold Twitter, Facebook and Google accountable for posting messages of support for the Islamic State (IS) group.
The court said social media does not “help or encourage” IS attacks by posting support for the extremist group.
The United States Supreme Court on Thursday rejected social network Twitter’s linking of terrorist attacks by organizations such as Islamic State (IS), in a ruling on the company’s alleged responsibility for not properly removing content from that group. .
simultaneously, In a similar investigation, the company Google has also been absolved of responsibilities this Thursday.
The decision was drafted by Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, with unanimous support from all of the court’s justices.
In the ruling, Thomas argues that holding Twitter responsible for the 2017 terrorist attack that claimed the life of Jordanian Naurus al-Assaf in Turkey, as requested by his family, It would also oblige any communication provider to commit any crime only if they are made aware that criminals use their systems.
“Actors such as IS can use these platforms (…) for illegal, and sometimes sinister, purposes,” says the magistrate, “but the same can be said of mobile phones, email or the Internet.” .
The judge further states that the allegation by Al Assaf’s relatives that Twitter failed to stop the spread of pro-IS messages does not prove that the social network intentionally tried to facilitate the attack in which he lost his identity .
It also highlights that the charge would make the platform liable for any attack carried out by IS anywhere in the world.
In a concurring opinion, progressive Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the rejection of the arguments of the Al Assaf family (and the family of Nohmi Gonzalez, who condemned Google for a similar case, which this Thursday was also rejected by the Supreme tha) This does not mean that the court will always rule in the same sense if new demands are presented.
Therefore, Jackson points out that the principles used by the court to reject both demands “are not universal,” so he leaves the door open for evaluating “other contexts” in which social networking companies have access to content published by their companies. Responsibility is assessed.
Both Google and Twitter maintained in both cases that the use of their platforms by IS terrorists did not mean that the technology companies provided them with conscious assistance. This view was also shared by the US government.
