Child pornography victims who alleged Reddit enabled and profited from obscene photos of youths were denied an appearance before the US Supreme Court.
In a report by Bloomberg, the judges did not provide any explanation for upholding a verdict that said Reddit is not responsible for users breaking sex trafficking laws by posting images of child abuse on the website.
Social Media Companies Are Protected by Section 230
This is only the latest in a series of triumphs for the largest American social media companies, which are protected from most lawsuits involving online speech by a legal doctrine known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Recently, the Supreme Court declined to weaken a liability shield for social media corporations like Twitter, Facebook, and Alphabet's Google.
When the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Reddit, Bloomberg said it was the first time a federal appeals court had a say on a 2018 modification to Section 230. This change was made so that social media sites could be sued for sex trafficking.
According to the plaintiffs, they were entitled to bring a lawsuit against Reddit for hosting photographs of their abuse because of new legislation passed in 2018 called the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). They claimed that Reddit "has engineered a social media platform where child pornography proliferates."
After the victims of sex trafficking failed to establish that Reddit had real knowledge of the abuse taking place on its site, the 9th Circuit ruled that Reddit was nonetheless protected by Section 230.
Also Read: Study: YouTube's Algorithm Leads Young Gamers to Gun Violence Content
The Supreme Court postponed a decision on whether or not to hear the Reddit case until after it had finished hearing and ruling on two other social media matters earlier in May. In the said cases, the court upheld Section 230, which protects Google and Twitter from legal repercussions related to terrorist material.
As a result, it was clear that the court was hesitant to make a ruling on the nuanced Section 230 provision that paved the way for the contemporary internet.
CNN Supreme Court analyst and University of Texas School of Law professor Steve Vladeck stated: "After the justices avoided any meaningful ruling on the scope of immunity for tech companies in the Google case, today's denial of review in the Reddit case suggests that their aversion was more than just about the Google case, specifically - and that the court is willing, at least for now, to leave any changes to Section 230 to Congress."
Companies in the social media space have backed Section 230 strongly, arguing that it is essential protection against a flood of multimillion-dollar lawsuits over hate speech. Legislators, however, have recently questioned whether Section 230 is too broad and safeguards internet platforms from responsibility for the damages they facilitate.
According to Bloomberg, the case number is 22-695, Jane Does No. 1-6 v. Reddit.
Also Read: TikTok Sues Montana to Overturn First-Ever US Statewide Ban
