US Supreme Court Debates Role of Social Media Companies in Terrorist Attacks

In the lawsuit filed on Twitter by the relatives of the US citizen of Nawras Alassaf, who lost his life along with 38 other people in the 2017 New Year’s Eve terrorist attack at the Reina entertainment center in Istanbul Ortaköy, differing opinions emerged from members of the Supreme Court.

Questioning whether Twitter can be held liable under the Terrorism Act, which allows lawsuits to be brought against anyone who “aided and abetted” an international terrorist act, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said that Twitter, with the current facilities that it provides, lays the foundations for the advance of terrorism.

Another member of the court, Justice Samuel Alito, said Twitter “cannot be legally liable for criminal charges” but said the different standard under the anti-terrorism law “makes it somewhat difficult” to determine whether the company is liable.

Commenting on the case, Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler said a company could be held liable under the statute if it had a “personal interaction” with the perpetrator of an illegal act while Twitter’s services were “away ” of the terrorist act in the case.

Members of the Supreme Court could not agree on whether to curb any form of legal immunity under section 230 of the Communications Ethics Act, which protects internet companies from a wide variety of lawsuits.

Eric Schnapper, who is the lawyer for the terror-victim family, tried to prove in the hearing that lasted more than 2 hours that Twitter contributed to the spread of the terrorist activities of ISIS, which carried out its action in Istanbul, “because to the third – party content recommended by their algorithms.”

THE ATTACK OF ISIS IN FRANCE WAS TALKED YESTERDAY

Members of the Supreme Court had discussed whether the YouTube platform could be held responsible for content recommended by similar algorithms used by the family of the American woman named Nohemi González, who lost her life in the ISIS attack in Paris in 2015 yesterday.

The lower court dismissed this case, largely based on the principle of immunity provided for in Article 230 of the Communications Ethics Act. (AA)