The Supreme Court said Monday it won’t consider whether Meta should be held liable for contributing to the radicalization of Dylann Roof, the self-proclaimed white nationalist mass shooter.
In doing so, the justices are refusing to wade into the latest fight over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives tech firms broad immunity from legal challenges over user-generated content.
The appeal to the high court came from the daughter of Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church senior pastor Clementa Pinckney, who was one of nine people killed by Roof in 2015.
Pinckney’s widow, Jennifer Pinckney, brought the suit on her daughter’s behalf. They were at the church during the shooting and hid in Pinckney’s office as it took place.
The lawsuit contends that Facebook, which is owned by Meta, determines what its users privately see on an individual basis, pointing to whistleblower reports. The platform purposefully feeds “more extreme” content and group recommendations to people who will be the most affected; who are inclined to keep seeking that content out; and who are likely to be radicalized, it says.
“Neither Section 230’s text nor its history suggests that Meta should be immune to suit for its own choices to manipulate users by recommending the most damaging content possible,” the surviving Pinckneys’ lawyers wrote in their petition to the justices. “And neither Section 230’s text nor its history provides immunity for suggesting that a person join a group of white supremacists.
“But the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, following on its own seminal atextual precedent on this provision, immunizes both,” they continued.
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit under Section 230, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed. The plaintiffs urged the court to take up the case to provide a “desperately needed change” to the way the provision is applied.
Meta initially waived its right to respond but was asked to weigh in by the justices. The company called M.P.’s lawsuit a “uniquely unsuitable vehicle” for addressing legal questions about the application of Section 230.
Section 230 has long been criticized as having handed technology companies unchecked power, given the challenges with prosecuting any alleged harms stemming from social media.
The court was also asked to consider whether the LGBTQ dating app Grindr could be held liable for a teenager’s sexual assault after joining the app. It has not yet issued a decision on whether it will consider that case in its new term.
