Google-Funded Groups Flood Court with Briefs in Sect. 230 Case

2
115

US Supreme Court

Dozens of groups funded by Google are flooding the Supreme Court with amicus briefs as it deliberates whether the tech giant should be held liable for content posted on its platforms. They all support Google. Shocker, I know.

“Nearly 40 nonprofits, legal organizations, and trade associations with financial and personnel ties to Google have formally submitted amicus briefs before the Court in Gonzalez v. Google, accounting for a third of the briefs submitted for the case,” says Mike Davis, President of The Internet Accountability Project.

This is the case questioning Section 230, which shields online platforms from legal liability over content posted by third parties.

None of these companies would survive without Section 230, in all likelihood. Abolishing 230 might not help with censorship, however. The likelihood is it could make it worse. What do you think?

In any case, should they be exempt since they are censoring, not just serving as hosts.

As Mr. Davis writes, these shills filing briefs should not be considered independent when their funding comes from Google.

The High Court will hear oral arguments for Gonzalez on Feb. 21. Justice Clarence Thomas has, in recent years, expressed a willingness to reconsider the total immunity granted to social media companies under Section 230.

Read the full article at The Washington Free Beacon.

Groups that receive most of their funding from google can be viewed on this link. When you go on these sites, you should know Google funds them. Most are left or far-left, but not all. The Republican Governors Association was a surprise to me, along with the Republican AG Assoc. and State Leadership Assoc. The Cato Institute and The Reason Foundation are on their payroll.


PowerInbox
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
GuvGeek
Guest
GuvGeek
1 year ago

Websites that host comment should not be liable for what users Post, but should be Sued to their Knees when they censor content.

When a News Organization lies or just plan gets something wrong they should be open to a lawsuit.

Peter B. Prange
Guest
Peter B. Prange
1 year ago

“In any case, should they be exempt since they are censoring, not just serving as hosts.”
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
“Public Utility” is defied differently from state to state, sometimes in the state constitution. In Ohio it is defined by case law.
“Ohio courts have found a “public service” requirement that involves weighing several factors. First, the entity should provide “an essential good or service to the general public which has a legal right to demand or receive this good or service.” Next, the entity must provide that good or service “generally and indiscriminately.” Finally, the entity must have “an obligation to provide the good or service that cannot be arbitrarily or unreasonably withdrawn.” In addition to the “public service” requirement, a public utility in Ohio must carry out “its operations in such a manner as to be a matter of public concern.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility
2023 02:48 GMT