Three decades ago, in the early days of the internet, Congress put language into Section 5 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that gave broad protection to website platforms that host information from third parties.

Section 230 of that massive law has been called the 26 words that created the internet.

Congress said that platforms in the new digital frontier

are not like traditional media digital frontier are not publishers, instead they're distributors

of information and therefore they shouldn't be held liable for offensive, violent or unlawful content

posted by users.

But what happens when algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter promote or recommend

terrorist material?

Should the companies be held accountable for aiding and abetting terrorism?

Hello friends, I'm Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution

Center and welcome to We The People, a weekly show of constitutional debate. National Constitution

a weekly show of constitutional debate. The National Constitution Center is a nonpartisan

nonprofit chartered by Congress to increase awareness and understanding of

the Constitution among the American people.

In this episode, Section 230 and the future of the Internet.

We'll break down the arguments in the Supreme Court cases Gonzales against Google and Twitter against

Tomna. We'll reach back to understand the history and purpose of

Section 230 and how it's been interpreted over the years and we'll look forward to

how the case could impact companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, and the future of the Internet itself.

Joining us are two of America's great scholars of technology and law.

Mary Ann Franks is the Michael Ar Klein Distinguished Scholar, Chair, and Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law.

She filed a friend of the court brief supporting Gonzales in the Google case.

...