In a case that has the potential to change the internet, US Supreme Court justices expressed caution on Tuesday about changing the legal protection provided to social media companies.
It pits Google, the company that owns YouTube, against the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, a 23-year-old who was shot dead by Islamic State fighters in Paris in 2015.
By suggesting its videos to users, they charge that the internet behemoth is supporting the terrorist organization.
Google claimed it is not responsible, citing a law from many years ago.
Internet service providers are shielded from liability by the Communications Decency Act's Section 230 against claims related to third-party content posted on their platforms.
The 1996 law also permits businesses to delete content that they believe to be in conflict with the terms of the platform.
The Supreme Court justices heard nearly three hours of arguments from attorneys for US government officials, Google, and Ms. Gonzalez's family on Tuesday.
The Supreme Court will have to decide whether platforms like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are protected when their algorithms direct users to specific information for the first time in this case, which also asks the court to define the parameters of Section 230.
During the hearing, justices voiced their concern that the law was challenging to interpret because the internet landscape had changed so significantly since it was first passed 27 years ago.
Additionally, the justices questioned whether a decision in Ms. Gonzalez's family's favor might pave the way for a flood of lawsuits against tech firms.
The liberal justice Elena Kagan said, "You are creating a world of lawsuits.". "Really, whenever you have content, you can also choose how it is presented and prioritized according to your preferences. ".
Conservative justice Samuel Alito and liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson both admitted they were perplexed by the arguments put forth by a lawyer for the Gonzalez family.
The conservative Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh expressed worry that any decision that would reduce the legal protections enjoyed by internet companies "would really crash the digital economy.".
In 2016, Ms. Gonzalez's family filed a lawsuit against Google, alleging that by suggesting Islamic State-hosted videos to its users, the tech giant had broken federal anti-terrorism laws.
Due to the tech giant's protection under Section 230, two lower courts have ruled in Google's favor.
By the end of June, the Supreme Court is supposed to have decided the case.
The justices will hear a comparable case on Wednesday regarding the issue of whether Twitter supported terrorism by allowing the Islamic State to use its platform.
