31-5-2023 The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review a case involving a lawsuit against Reddit Inc. that accuses the company of violating federal law by failing to remove child pornography from its discussion website. The lawsuit was dismissed by a lower court, citing the legal protection provided by Section 230, which shields internet companies from liability for user-generated content, with the exception of claims related to child sex trafficking.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal challenging the lower court’s decision. This follows the court’s previous decision on May 19, where it avoided narrowing the scope of Section 230 immunity in a separate case.
Section 230, established as part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, safeguards “interactive computer services” by treating them as platforms and not publishers of user-provided information. The Reddit case delved into the interpretation of a 2018 amendment to Section 230 known as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA). FOSTA permits lawsuits against internet companies if the claims involve child sex trafficking.
Reddit operates through forums called subreddits, where users can post content that is moderated by other users. The lawsuit revolves around sexually explicit images and videos of children shared on these subreddits. The plaintiffs, consisting of parents of minors and a former minor who were featured in the images, filed a class-action lawsuit against Reddit in 2021, seeking financial compensation.
The plaintiffs accused Reddit of insufficiently removing or preventing child pornography and profiting from illegal posts through advertising, which they claimed violated federal child sex trafficking laws.
In 2022, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that for the FOSTA exception to apply, plaintiffs must demonstrate that an internet company knowingly benefited from sex trafficking through its own actions. The court concluded that the allegations in this case merely suggested that Reddit “turned a blind eye” to the unlawful content rather than actively participating in sex trafficking.
Reddit responded in court documents, asserting its commitment to combating the sharing of child sexual exploitation materials on its platform. The company stated that it provides users with tools to flag posts and employs dedicated teams to remove illegal content.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene in this case follows its previous rejection of a bid to weaken Section 230. The earlier case aimed to hold Google LLC accountable under a federal anti-terrorism law for allegedly recommending content by the Islamic State militant group on its YouTube video-sharing service.
Calls for a reevaluation of Section 230 have emerged from various corners, spanning the ideological and political spectrum. Both Democratic President Joe Biden and former Republican President Donald Trump have voiced their support for amending Section 230 to ensure companies can be held responsible for content on their platforms.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the plaintiffs highlighted the role of child pornography in facilitating sex trafficking and argued that websites claiming immunity under Section 230 contribute to the victimization of children. Allowing the 9th Circuit’s decision to stand, they contended, would shield a significant number of violators involved in child victimization from legal repercussions.
