Child pornography victims’ request to present their case against Reddit to the US Supreme Court was denied.
The Judiciary’s Decision to Uphold Verdict Protecting Reddit from Liability in Child Abuse Images Case Lacks Explanation.
Judge’s Ruling on Reddit’s Child Pornography Liability
In the latest legal development, the judges chose not to provide a rationale for their decision to uphold a verdict stating that Reddit cannot be held responsible for users violating sex trafficking laws by sharing images of Child pornography on the platform.
This ruling is part of a series of victories for major American social media companies, who enjoy protection from most lawsuits related to online speech under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Recently, the Supreme Court refused to weaken the liability shield for social media corporations like Twitter, Facebook, and Google’s Alphabet.
The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in favor of Reddit marked the first instance of a federal appeals court addressing a 2018 amendment to Section 230. This amendment aimed to hold social media platforms accountable for sex trafficking offenses.
Read more: Lawyer Admits Using ChatGPT To Draft Court Filing, Ends Having Fabricated Facts
Supreme Court’s Delayed Decision
The plaintiffs argued that they had the right to sue Reddit for hosting images of their abuse under the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), a legislation passed in 2018. They contended that Reddit has created a social media platform where child pornography thrives.
Despite the victims’ inability to establish that Reddit had actual knowledge of the abuse occurring on its site, the 9th Circuit determined that Reddit was still protected by Section 230.
The Supreme Court postponed a decision on whether to hear the Reddit case until after concluding two other social media-related cases earlier in May. In those cases, the court upheld Section 230, safeguarding Google and Twitter from legal consequences regarding terrorist material.
This sequence of events demonstrates the court’s reluctance to rule on the intricate provisions of Section 230, which have paved the way for the modern internet.
Social media companies strongly support Section 230, arguing that it is crucial for shielding them against an onslaught of multimillion-dollar lawsuits concerning hate speech.
However, lawmakers have recently raised concerns about whether Section 230 grants excessive immunity to internet platforms, absolving them of responsibility for the harm they enable.
The case number for this matter is 22-695, Jane Does No. 1-6 v. Reddit.
Read more: Ohio Lawmaker: Deal To Prevent US Debt Default Removes Proposed 30% Crypto Mining Tax
