The Chamber of Progress, a progressive tech industry coalition, and sexual health group Advocates for Youth are calling on the Department of Justice to support Google in the case, Gonzalez v. Google.
The organizations sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to "ensure the continued availability of life-saving reproductive health resources," according to a Nov. 22 Chamber of Progress news release. In light of abortion bans across the country, online platforms will be the only access to specific health care information.
"A court decision undermining Section 230 would endanger the ability of online platforms to host reproductive health info," the Chamber said in a Nov. 22 post on Twitter. "Before it's too late, DOJ should weigh in on Gonzalez v. Google."
Gonzalez v. Google is a case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court that is examining the role and scope of Section 230 in regards to social media, specifically as it relates to radical content that could lead to real violence, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
The Chamber of Progress describes itself as "a center-left tech industry policy coalition promoting technology’s progressive future" that is working to ensure that the tech industry is operating in a fair and responsible manner that benefits all Americans, according to its news release.
Bipartisan Policy Center reported Section 230(c)(1) states that, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” Without that provision, social media companies could potentially face lawsuits over content posted on their platforms. Section 230(c)(2) allows platforms to moderate content in order to cultivate a safe online environment.
"Should the Court curb Section 230’s protections for algorithmic curation, online services would face extreme threats of liability for promoting life-saving reproductive health information, otherwise criminalized by state anti-abortion laws," the Chamber's letter to Garland read. "While these laws should ultimately be ruled unconstitutional, online services will face significant legal risk for promoting third-party resources for reproductive healthcare. This would be a devastating reality for women seeking reproductive resources in states where they are unavailable.”
Gonzalez v. Google arose in response to questions over liability concerning terrorist content that allegedly radicalized ISIS sympathizers to carry out acts of terror in Paris in 2015, according to Bipartisan Policy Center. Gonzalez is accusing Google of violating the Anti-Terrorism Act through furthering ISIS' mission and believes that Google should be held responsible for promoting ISIS messaging through targeted ads on its platform.
Gonzalez is also arguing YouTube provided "material support" to ISIS by permitting ISIS to post hundreds of videos, which were then boosted by YouTube's algorithm, allegedly helping to increase "the growth and activity of ISIS,” Bipartisan Policy Center reported. The Supreme Court will consider the question, “Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?”
