On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued brief decisions in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, sending the cases back to the lower courts without changing the interpretation of Section 230. Gonzalez, which had asked the Court to limit the scope of Section 230’s legal immunity shield for online platforms, suffered in oral arguments as justices recognized the thorny policy questions that altering Section 230’s interpretation might raise.

Chamber of Progress led an amicus brief in the case of Gonzalez v. Google along with half-a-dozen other industry and civil society groups, urging the Court to side with Google and uphold Section 230’s existing protection of algorithmic content moderation. 

“This decision leaving Section 230 untouched is an unambiguous victory for online speech and content moderation,” said Chamber of Progress Legal Advocacy Counsel Jess Miers. “While the Court might once have had an appetite for reinterpreting decades of Internet law, it was clear from oral arguments that changing Section 230’s interpretation would create more issues than it would solve. Ultimately, the Court made the right decision. Section 230 has made possible the Internet as we know it.”

Read the Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh.

###

Chamber of Progress (progresschamber.org) is a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future.  We work to ensure that all Americans benefit from technological leaps, and that the tech industry operates responsibly and fairly.  

Our corporate partners do not have a vote on or veto over our positions. We do not speak for individual partner companies and remain true to our stated principles even when our partners disagree.