The US Supreme Court has its hands full trying to figure out if tech companies are liable for aiding and abetting terrorism. Just a day after it began hearing the landmark Gonzalez v Google case, it opened the innings for Twitter v Taamneh, CNBC reported. What's this case about?: The case was brought by the American family of Nawras Alassaf. Alassaf was murdered in an ISIS terrorist attack on Istanbul's Reina nightclub in 2017. The case at the Supreme Court revolves around Twitter's alleged involvement in aiding and abetting terrorism—the family argued that the platform aided ISIS' growth and didn't do enough to curb terrorist activity. The Gonzalez v Google case was also brought by the family of an ISIS victim, but, its grounds are different. Instead of looking at Twitter's liability under anti-terrorism law like Taamneh, it looks at the scope of immunity Google should receive for recommending such content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Why does it matter?: Social media platforms host all sorts of content online. It may be difficult for them to take down all the unsavoury third-party content users post online, even if they are enforcing their content moderation policies. That's a question the justices grappled with yesterday—"the justices struggled to draw a line between holding organizations responsible for supporting terrorism and allowing organizations to go about legitimate business, even if they may come in contact with terrorists as part of that business". What did Twitter say?: Twitter can't be held responsible for aiding and abetting when…
