the case was brought by the family of nohemi gonzalez, who was killed in the paris 2015 terror attack her family sued google claiming the company had illegally promoted islamic state propaganda videos. then on wednesday, justices heard arguments in the case of twitter v. taamneh. this case was brought by the family of nawras alassaf who was killed, along with 38 others in an 2017 isis attack on a nightclub in turkey. during oral arguments on the twitter case, justice elena kagan made this comment which was met with laughter. >> we are court. we really don't know about these things. these are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet. [laughter] amy: for more, we're joined by aaron mackey senior staff , attorney with the electronic frontier foundation. welcome to democracy now! it is great to have you with us. can you talk about the significance of the supreme court and the internet last week, the idea that based on their decision, it could change the internet as we know it for all time? >> good morning. the two cases that were heard were the first time the supreme court has a

it centres around a dispute involving youtube and the family of an american student nohemi gonzalez whoilitants in paris. sonia gipson—rankin is an associate professor of law at the university of new mexico school of law. she nowjoins us live. sonia, thank you forjoining us. now, how significance is this case? , , . , case? this is a very significant - case? this is a very significant case. - case? this is a very - significant case. section 230 has a statute that is under discussion here, known as the 26 words that created the internet. every platform we have to day, every conversation that happens online, every purchase that happens online, every dialogue and discussion and sharing of information is based off of the statute, so this is the first time the united states supreme court has brought forward any kind of or listen to any cases referring to the statute.— to the statute. you have mentioned _ to the statute. you have mentioned this - to the statute. you have mentioned this section, | to the statute. you have - mentioned this section, 230, thatis mentioned this section, 230, that

nohemi gonzalez was at a bistro when terrorists unleashed fire at a bistro, part of a coordinated acontactled 129 people. she was the only american. >> it was a terrible, horrible moment in my life that i cannot describe. the pain. >> reporter: the gonzalez family now wants youtube and parent company google to be held liable for nohemi's death. their lawyer arguing to the supreme court tuesday that because youtube not only allowed isis videos on its site, but also recommended those videos to certain viewers, the social media site should be held responsible for aiding and abetting terrorism. >> when they go beyond delivering to what you've asked for to start sending things you haven't asked for, our intention is they're not -- >> so even if i -- >> reporter: but google says they're protected by the broad contours of section 230 of the communications decency act. congress passed the law in 1996 to shield internet platforms from being sued for harmful content posted by third pears on their sites. google's lawyer argued that shield also applies to any recommendations the site might make. . >>

the plaintiff argues youtube, which is owned by google, bears responsibility in the death of nohemi gonzalez a u.s. citizen who was killed in the paris 2015 terror attack, because it recommended isis recruitment videos on its platform. the justices, however, seemed unlikely to reverse decades of status quo in legal protection for the tech companies. in wisconsin, a primary vote for a seat on the state supreme court has advanced a liberal candidate janet protasiewicz and conservative daniel kelly to the april 4 run-off, which could tip the court to the left for the first time in 14 years. at stake is the future of wisconsin's abortion ban, which went into effect after the overturning of roe v. wade last year. the balance of wisconsin's top court will also play a key role in voting amid battles over the state's heavily gerrymandered legislative and congressional maps and possible challenges in the 2024 presidential election. here in new york, genaro garcÍa luna, mexico's former top security official once charged with leading the fight against narco trafficking, was convicted tuesday for accept

today's case was brought by the family of a young woman, nohemi gonzalez, who was killed by isis membersack in 2015 she was studying abroad, in paris. her family is suing youtube's parent company google saying they should be on the hook and should have to pay for her death because isis has been posting hundreds of videos on youtube about recruitment, using it as a recruitment tool that youtube knows about it, and hasn't taken those videos down, is actually recommending other isis videos based on what users have watched in the past. now, typically, as you said, tech companies can't be sued for what other people post online because of a law called section 230, but here the text of the case really is about the recommendation of the videos, not about the hosting of the videos so expect a lot of questioning from the justices today about whether section 230 should apply at all, and that's what has the tech companies so nervous about this case. >> it has far-reaching potential implications if the tech companies were held liable so how might that affect what we scroll through and what we see tha