Son dos casos en realidad.
Supreme Court will hear two cases seeking to hold social media companies financially responsible for terrorist attacks
One of the cases involves Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen killed in Paris in the 2015 ISIS attacks.
Es probable que el caso se falle antes del fin del actual periodo, o sea tal vez en junio del año entrante.
«The court will hear the cases this term, which began Monday, with a decision expected before the court recesses for the summer, usually in late June. The court did not say when it would hear arguments, but the court has already filled its argument calendar for October and November.»
VOA, «US Supreme Court Will Hear Social Media Terrorism Lawsuits», https://www.voanews.com/a/us-supreme-court-will-hear-social-media-terrorism-lawsuits-/6773833.html
Social Media Company Liability Draws US Supreme Court Scrutiny
The US Supreme Court will decide whether social media companies can be sued for hosting and recommending terrorist content, taking up two cases that challenge their liability protections.
Un resumen
El fallo judicial que podría cambiar el futuro de las redes sociales
La Corte de Estados Unidos decidirá cuál es la responsabilidad de las grandes tecnológicas en los contenidos de internet
Breve historia
Supreme Court to scrutinize U.S. protections for social media
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a challenge to federal protections for internet and social media companies freeing them of responsibility for content posted by users in a case involving an American student fatally shot in a 2015 rampage by Islamist militants in Paris.
El fenómeno
Las redes sociales son el imam más poderoso
Las mezquitas tratan de atraer a los jóvenes que escapan de su radar y encuentran en Internet una interpretación del islam radical y victimista
Examen del tema
14.-MENDEZ_DOSSIER-CREENCIAS-88.pdf
Revisión
Terrorismo islamista en las redes – La yihad electrónica
Autoría: Eguskiñe Lejarza Illaro.
Localización: Pre-bie3. Nº. 5, 2015.
Artículo de Revista en Dialnet.
El caso
20220404211548101_GonzalezPetPDF.pdf
La sección 230 de la Ley de Decencia en las Comunicaciones de 1996
«ningún proveedor o usuario de un servicio informático interactivo será tratado como el editor o hablante de cualquier información proporcionada por otro proveedor de contenido de información»»
https://www.independentespanol.com/tecnologia/seccion-230-regla-internet-twitter-facebook-google-b1401498.html
Algunos fallos de interés:
The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Ralph D. ABERNATHY et al., Petitioners, v. L. B. SULLIVAN.
U.S. Supreme Court – The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. L. B. SULLIVAN. Ralph D. ABERNATHY et al., Petitioners, v. L. B. SULLIVAN.
FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, NORTH DAKOTA DIVISION, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. WDAY, INC.
U.S. Supreme Court – FARMERS EDUCATIONAL AND COOPERATIVE UNION OF AMERICA, NORTH DAKOTA DIVISION, a Corporation, Petitioner, v. WDAY, INC.
«‘(I)mperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.'»
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353
DE JONGE v. STATE OF OREGON.
U.S. Supreme Court – DE JONGE v. STATE OF OREGON.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/TK7SXJD3EBK4PB74T6U524HNRQ.jpg)
