You can unsubscribe from this mailing list at any time:
[link removed]
<!-- ak.wysiwyg=code -->
[ [link removed] ]Free Press
Free Press is headed back to the Supreme Court to defend the safe and open exchange of ideas on the internet. Help us win: A generous donor will DOUBLE your year-end gift.
[link removed]
It's official: Free Press is headed back to the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear Gonzalez v. Google LLC, a 2021 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision — and it could decide the fate of the modern internet as we know it, which is why we’ve filed an amicus brief to defend the good parts of Section 230 of the Communications Act, and discuss how that law has been occasionally misinterpreted too.
The case hinges on whether Google should bear any responsibility for hosting or amplifying terrorist-recruitment videos that sparked a 2015 attack in Paris, allegedly providing “material support” to a terrorist group. The facts of the case are tragic, and the victim’s familiy’s attempts to seek justice cannot be overshadowed by the legal questions in play. However, the Section 230 questions are also of tremendous importance for the future of the internet and the open exchange of ideas on it.
We had to raise dedicated resources for this fight, but the truth is that we need to raise more to ensure the Supreme Court gets it right on this case and others following right behind it. We’re relying on supporters like you to help us hit our $50,000 year-end goal to fund this urgent work — will you rush a gift today? Thanks to a generous matching-gift donor, your donation will go TWICE AS FAR.
--------------
DOUBLE MY GIFT
[link removed]
--------------
Section 230 is a foundational and necessary law. It benefits not just tech companies large and small, but also the hundreds of millions of people who use their services daily. It does that by lowering barriers to people sharing their own content online, without the pre-vetting platforms would have to do if they were liable for everything their users say and do.
The law protects platforms from being sued as publishers of other parties’ information. It permits and encourages these companies to make content-moderation decisions while retaining that initial protection from liability.
In other words, Section 230 encourages the open exchange of ideas AND takedowns of hateful and harmful material. Without a balancing of these paired protections, we’d risk losing moderation and removal of the very same kinds of videos at issue in this case.
Losing the core of the law could risk chilling online expression too, since not all plaintiffs suing to remove ideas they don’t like would be proceeding in good faith as the victims’ families here clearly did. That would disproportionately harm Black and Brown communities, LGBTQIA+ people, immigrants, religious minorities, dissidents, and all people and ideas targeted for suppression or harassment by powerful forces.
But as our amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court explains, when platforms have actual knowledge of the grievous harm caused by some unlawful and hateful content — yet they still continue to host it or even amplify it — Section 230 doesn’t and shouldn’t grant them complete immunity for their decisions.
This case is more urgent than ever: Make a year-end gift today to help us win at the Supreme Court and preserve Section 230.
--------------
DOUBLE MY GIFT
[link removed]
--------------
Thank you for all that you do,
Jessica, Matt, Nora and the rest of the Free Press legal team
freepress.net
P.S. Using a Gonzalez v. Google LLC decision to alter Section 230 in the wrong ways would have disastrous consequences for all of us who use the internet to connect, communicate, and advocate for justice. Rush a year-end gift (doubled by a generous donor) to Free Press right now to help us make the strongest argument possible.
[link removed]
<!-- ak.wysiwyg=code -->
