In November 2015, tragedy struck the heart of France when 130 people were ruthlessly murdered in a series of coordinated Islamic State terrorist attacks. One of the victims was Nohemi Gonzalez, an American student studying abroad, who was dining with a group of friends at a restaurant in Paris. One may wonder, how could such a deadly attack have occurred?
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Simply put, terrorists have tragically learned to exploit the fruits of western ingenuity in an endless pursuit of western destruction. Terrorist groups are actively utilizing social media sites to further their bloodthirsty activities, and Section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act (CDA) limits the potential liability facing these companies.
In Gonzalez v. Google, Nohemi Gonzalez's surviving family members sued Google for providing material support to ISIS and for providing ISIS with a tool with which they commit terrorism. They further argued that YouTube provided the terror group with a powerful mechanism to communicate with its members. This complaint was largely dismissed because, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Google is not considered a publisher and therefore cannot be held liable for content posted by third parties.
The CDA was passed in 1996 and was primarily intended to help ensure the growth of the internet during its infancy and to protect innovation. In essence, the CDA's Section 230 limits social media sites' liability for content posted by third party users. While both Republicans and Democrats alike have attacked Section 230 in recent years, the impact of Section 230 on terrorist activities has failed to attract the attention that it deserves.
In 2015, Professor Gabriel Weimann of Haifa University found that "ninety percent of terrorist activity on the internet takes place using social networking tools." Al-Qaida, Hamas, and ISIS have all utilized social media sites to spread hate-filled, violent messages and to recruit new members. Experts have also warned that certain internet platforms can help orchestrate terrorist operations, allowing terror groups to increase the effectiveness of their deadly attacks. While the internet rose to prominence in the 1990's, no one could have imagined the powerful force that it would one day become.
Even after terrorist groups have proven that they are determined to exploit social media sites for their own benefit, the laws and regulations in place today fail to effectively counter this behavior. In Force v. Facebook, the plaintiffs alleged that Facebook provided material support to Hamas, a US-designated terrorist group. In Force, the plaintiffs included the families of American citizens who were the victims of terrorist attacks in the Middle East between 2014 and 2016. Although the court recognized the plaintiff's argument and was sympathetic to their position, it ultimately held that the text of Section 230 at the moment prevented Facebook from facing liability.
Section 230 is acting as a shield for social media sites that have assisted known terrorists to extinguish the lives of innocent men, women, and children around the world. Recognized terror groups are actively using social media sites to recruit new members, communicate with their followers, and, ultimately, to plan future terror attacks. We must amend Section 230 of the CDA to establish that social media sites will be held accountable if they assist terror groups in any way.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
