-
Indonesia deploys hundreds of soldiers to tackle Borneo fires
-
Duplantis locked in on 'grinding' for big bars
-
The last lap: Fans, drivers bid fond farewell to Dutch GP
-
Stokes says decision to leave Headingley off Ashes roster 'shambolic'
-
Silesia Diamond League: four events to watch
-
New arrival Rodri to miss Elche opener: Barca's Flick
-
Russell wins Dutch GP sprint race, Antonelli fourth
-
Atletico's Alvarez to return against Villarreal: Simeone
-
Mercedes driver George Russell wins Dutch GP sprint race
-
Dozens of civilians killed, kidnapped as jihadists clash in Nigeria
-
Ukraine strikes kill two children after Russia's deadly mall attack
-
Former envoys urge joint French, UK action on Palestinian territories
-
Pope visits San Marino, before addressing Italian political gathering
-
Australia lead by 101 in 2nd Bangladesh Test as 18 wickets fall on day one
-
Trump tariffs heap up as Canada tries to curb US reliance
-
'Aura' battles leap from social media to Latin America streets
-
Australia lose three wickets after skittling Bangladesh for 64
-
US, Canada fail to reach trade pact to avert Trump tariffs
-
Bangladesh all out for 64 in 2nd Test after Starc masterclass
-
Sudan farms lie barren as El Nino leaves Nile banks dry
-
Odyssey effect: stars sell Greece to a new wave of US tourists
-
Arctic shipping a daunting prospect in hotly contested region
-
South Korea to send first container ship through Arctic route
-
In US, rare earths extracted from coal mine wastewater
-
Starc takes 5-11 to leave Bangladesh reeling in 2nd Test
-
Nakashima pounds Fritz, Bejlek beats Keys in Cincinnati upsets
-
Injured Rune withdraws from US Open
-
Canadian negotiator says 'more work to do' on US trade deal
-
Nakashima knocks out Fritz to reach Cincinnati semi-finals
-
'Solid' Clark takes solo lead at BMW Championship
-
Ukraine says 'cynical' Russian strike on shopping centre killed 16
-
Arteta hails Arsenal's desire after perfect start to title defence
-
TikTok to pay $400 mn settlement in US children's privacy case
-
Betis down Real Sociedad in La Liga opener
-
MLS fines Messi for striking an opponent
-
Mexican governor resumes job despite US drug charges
-
Gouiri double fires Marseille past Strasbourg in Ligue 1 opener
-
Arsenal rout Coventry to open Premier League season in style
-
Mavericks buy out Thompson, now reportedly bound for Heat
-
Giant-killer Bejlek overhauls Keys to reach Cincinnati semi-finals
-
England v Pakistan first Test: Three talking points
-
Man Utd agree deal for Brighton midfielder Baleba: reports
-
US, Canada push to seal trade deal as deadline nears
-
Werro wins Lausanne 800m, well off world record pace
-
One dead, three wounded after sword attack at Swedish high school
-
China mulls bid to host 2028 UN climate talks: sources
-
Ukraine says 'cynical' Russian strike on shopping centre killed 15
-
Jones becomes third Englishman to join Inter this summer
-
US Supreme Court allows White House ballroom construction for now
-
Mexican governor wanted on US drug charges returns to job
US top court back Big Tech in terror cases
The US Supreme Court handed a victory to Twitter, Facebook and Google on Thursday, saying the social media giants could not be held liable by victims of terrorist attacks for postings that endorsed the Islamic State group.
Crucially, the cases that targeted Google-owned YouTube and Twitter were seen as potential challenges to decades-old legal protections for tech companies. And the justices declined to wade into the debate.
In their decision, the justices indicated that the cases were not fit to address the law, because the platforms did not in any case "aid and abet" IS terror attacks by hosting postings supportive of the extremist group.
A law known as Section 230 gives internet platforms blanket immunity from the fallout of content that comes from a third party, even if it is pushed out as a recommendation by the website.
Section 230, which became law in 1996, is credited with allowing the no-holds-barred expansion of the internet but has increasingly been seen as helping cause the harmful effects of social media on society.
Without it, websites would potentially be open to lawsuits for content posted by users, making the free-wheeling discussions seen on social media subject to much closer moderation.
A bitterly divided US congress has failed to update the rules, and many US states are passing their own laws to make platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok more responsible for content.
The justices of the Supreme Court largely evaded the question. They said that the allegations against YouTube and Twitter did not amount to a liable infraction and therefore the debate over section 230 was not pertinent.
"We therefore decline to address the application of Section 230 (in a case) that appears to state little, if any, plausible claim for relief," they said.
The justices however gave no indication on how they could potentially address the immunity issue in the future, nor were their stances on the matter made clear at hearings in February.
- 'Fight another day' -
"With this decision, free speech online lives to fight another day," said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU, which advocates for free speech.
The first of the two cases involved a US victim of the 2015 Paris attacks, claimed by the IS group.
The other case was brought by the family of a victim of a 2017 attack by the group on an Istanbul nightclub.
The family alleged that Twitter's failure to take down and stop recommending IS tweets constituted aiding an act of terror.
Google and Facebook's owner Meta did not immediately reply to a request for comment, but an association representing US tech companies said the decision was good news.
"The Court correctly recognized the narrow posture of these cases and declined to rewrite a key tenet of US Internet law, preserving free expression online and a thriving digital economy,” said Matt Schruers, head of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.
The Supreme Court declines to hear the vast majority of the cases that come its way, and experts had predicted that by opting to decide on this one, there could be a willingness to modify the increasingly contested landmark law.
But in the hearings, the justices largely expressed doubts that the case would be fit to begin a debate about reworking Section 230.
J.AbuShaban--SF-PST