From New York Times, I'm Michael Bavaro. This is The Daily.

Today, the modern internet has been defined by a sweeping legal shield created by Congress.

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that could take that shield away.

My colleague, Adam Liptac, was in the room.

It's Thursday, February 23rd.

Adam, tell us about this big case that was argued before the Supreme Court just a few days ago.

So the case is called Gonzales versus Google and it arises from a terrible terrorist attack in Paris in November of 2015.

We're more than 100 people were killed, including at the Bata Clon concert hall.

And among those people was a young American student, a 23-year-old college student named Noemi Gonzalez.

An ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks.

The lawsuit brought by Noemi Gonzalez' family,

Sue's YouTube, Google's Video Service,

on the theory that YouTube bore some responsibility for these attacks by hosting and posting videos

that the family says helped inspire and radicalize the terrorists.

Now, there's a little direct proof that any actual terrorist looked in an actual particular video.

But nonetheless, atmosphereically, it is the case that YouTube posted some of these videos

and served them up to you one after the other if you were interested.

So through this lawsuit, this family is attempting to do legally what many people wish they could do,

which is hold an internet company responsible for the real world consequences of how ugly online content

can hurt people in the real world.

In this case, through someone being killed.

Right. I mean, these companies are enormously powerful.

...