Abstract
This paper critically examines the relevance of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in the context of recent United States Supreme Court rulings, specifically Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google. The Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that determining the extent of CDA230’s immunity lies with legislators, not the judiciary. This study explores the potential liability of algorithms in supporting terrorism and the implications for European regulations under the Digital Services Act. Findings indicate that while CDA230 has fostered internet growth, it also challenges content regulation. The United States approach contrasts with the European Union’s more explicit service provider responsibilities, suggesting a need for legislative updates to balance free expression with the control of harmful content.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
