The recent Supreme Court ruling upheld the protection of tech giants Twitter and Google from liability in terrorism lawsuits. The decision reaffirmed the immunity provided under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields online platforms from responsibility for user-generated content.
Advocates see this as a victory for free speech, while critics express concerns about the impact on national security and the spread of extremist content. The ruling has sparked debates on the responsibilities of online platforms and the need for potential reforms to strike a balance between freedom of expression and addressing online extremism. Real Research conducted a survey on the Section 230 court ruling to gather public opinion on the matter.
- 41.01% agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in these cases.
- 48.52% believed social media platforms should be liable for violent content posted on its platform.
- 34.28% of respondents believed that Section 230 puts users in harm’s way.
According to the results from the survey on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on section 230, we found that a majority of respondents (59%) were aware of Twitter’s and YouTube’s court cases, where the platforms alleged terrorism propaganda videos. Meanwhile, 41% of respondents were unaware.
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Internet Companies: Twitter and Google Under Section 230
The Supreme Court’s ruling is likely to have a significant impact on the politics of online content moderation. In the wake of the ruling, tech companies will likely face increased pressure from politicians and regulators to do more to remove harmful content from their platforms.
However, the ruling also gives tech companies a strong legal defense against such demands.
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects internet companies such as Twitter and YouTube from liability for the content posted by their users.
The case, called Nohemi Gonzalez v. Google LLC, was brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, an American college student who was killed in the 2015 Paris attacks. The family argued that YouTube, which Google owns, was liable for the attacks because it had recommended ISIS videos to users.
The Supreme Court rejected the family’s argument, saying that the Section 230 court ruling protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users, even if that content is harmful.
We asked our respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Section 230 court rulings on these cases. Results revealed that 41% strongly agreed, while 38% somewhat agreed.
In contrast, 9% somewhat disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed. 9% of respondents were unsure.
We then asked the respondents whether platforms such as Google and Twitter should allow harmful content to be posted. 37% of the respondents agreed, compared to 33% who denied it, and 30% were uncertain.
The Debate Over Social Media Responsibility for Harmful Content
When we asked the respondents whether they think social media companies should be held accountable for harmful content posted on their platforms. Results showed that nearly half of the respondents (49%) said yes, while 21% said no, and 31% were unsure.
Justice Thomas rejected the family’s argument, ruling that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects internet companies from liability for content posted by their users, even if that content is harmful.
The Court held that Section 230 was necessary to protect free speech on the internet and that it would be “a mistake to interpret the statute to impose publisher liability on companies that host third-party content.”
Justice Thomas’s statement that “bad actors like ISIS are able to use platforms like defendants’ for illegal and sometimes terrible ends” is a recognition of the fact that social media platforms can be used for harmful purposes
We asked the respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement. Half of the respondents (50%) strongly agreed and 42% somewhat agreed. In contrast, 6% somewhat disagreed and 2% strongly disagreed.
Section 230 Court Ruling: A Victory for Free Speech or a Tool for Manipulation?
The Supreme Court Ruling, Section 230, has two varying arguments concerning the law. One side argues that the law allows for more freedom of speech and a cast amount of content on the internet. The other side argues that it could result in manipulation or harm to users of the platforms.
According to our survey results, we found that 31% of respondents believed that the Section 230 court ruling allows a vast amount of content and more freedom of speech. 34% believed that Section 230 puts its users in harm’s way, and 34% were unsure.
We then inquired the respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court siding with Google and Twitter in its ruling on Section 230. 38% agreed, 32% disagreed, and 31% were unsure.
|Survey Title||Survey on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Section 230|
|Duration||May 22, 2023 – May 29, 2023|
|Number of Participants||10,000|
|Demographics||Males and females, aged 21 to 99|
|Participating Countries||Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia,… Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, China (Hong Kong) China (Macao), China (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Greanada, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Lithuania, Malaysia, Maldives, Maluritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar [Burma], Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.|
Real Research News is the media platform that presents insights and studies of wide-range of topics. It focuses on insights gathered from its survey app.