Nohemi Gonzalez, of California was on a students’ exchange programme in Paris at the time of terror attack. Source: Twitter
California: A couple in the US whose only daughter was killed in the shooting rampages along with 130 others in Paris on November 13, 2015, are suing google for recommending terrorist content.
The matter was first heard by a lower court in 2017 and the court had sided google, but the family appealed and the case is now scheduled to be heard by Supreme court in October.
It is anticipated that the court’s answer to the claims of the deceased person’s family can transform the way internet works.
Beatrice Gonzalez, describes her daughter’s death changed her life. Nohemi Gonzalez alias Mimi was barely 20-years old at the time of her death. She was a senior year student at California State University.
Reports say, she was in Paris on a students’ exchange program, and was shot along with 19 others at a busy bistro while out with friends. Later Islamic States of Iran and Syria (ISIS) had taken the responsibility of the attack.
Gonzalez added that her daughter had put in a lot of effort over many years to get into college and had been successful in whatever she set her mind to.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Beatrice remarked, “I was in pain; I was in a bubble.”
She told that attorneys from an Israeli law centre that specialised in suing businesses that support terrorists had approached her to ask if she was interested in starting a case about the killing of her daughter.
She reportedly agreed hoping that it could be a way to give tribute to her daughter.
In lawsuit, Shurat HaDin, an Israeli nonprofit law group whose name translates from Hebrew as “letter of the law,” argued that Google’s YouTube video service had violated the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act by recommending Islamic State propaganda movies.
Google attorneys in response argued that the case has no merit because, apparently, a US law shields internet corporations from accountability for anything submitted by their users.
As a result of which lower courts sided with Google. The family however has appealed and Supreme court is likely to hear the matter in October.
What does the Law say?
Section 230, the legal provision at the centre of the Supreme Court case, shields internet companies from liability for content posted by their users for almost three decades.
As a result, platforms like Facebook and YouTube have been able to develop into the cultural and commercial behemoths they are today.
Supporters contend that the rule is essential to a free and open internet because it gives businesses the freedom to let users publish whatever they want and the power to police their platforms as they see fit, protecting themfrom further spam or harassment.
Critics of the law say it gives tech companies a pass to shirk responsibility or engage in unfair censorship.
The Washington post reports that in the Gonzalez case, 79 outside businesses, trade associations, governmentalbodies, and nonprofits have submitted arguments.
It has also been anticipated that the final remaining provision of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which gives businesses the legal right to host other people’s information, might soon be repealed.
Gonzalez claimed she had no idea the case would take on such importance.
I still can’t believe I’m in Washington and about to appear in court, she exclaimed.
Google has not issued any statement on the issue.
However, in a blogpost published in January by Google general counsel Halimah DeLaine Prado, he says the court’s ruling “may drastically transform how Americans utilise the internet.”
Changing Section 230 could make it difficult for companies to use algorithms to recommend any content, from songs on Spotify to items from small businesses on e-commerce platforms such as Etsy, she said.
Read all the Latest News, Trending News, Cricket News, Bollywood News,India News and Entertainment News here. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.