Why the Supreme Court's Section 230 case could reshape the internet

News alert now on the Supreme Court hearing on Section 230 which has potentially revolutionary implications for the internet as we know it. Aiman Javuz with the details. Hi, Aiman. Hi, Tyler. That's right. That issue today before the Supreme Court was the question of whether or not Twitter can be held liable for aiding and abetting ISIS under the Anti-Terrorism Act because some members of ISIS were able to use Twitter to recruit and fundraise for their enterprise and because some people were killed in ISIS terrorist attacks. That was the question that the court was grappling with today and the court justices seemed to really try to get their arms around what the implications would be of a decision here for all kinds of other businesses, whether it's banks, whether it's gun dealers, whether it's telephone companies, all the rest who might be implicated in a similar type of situation in which ISIS or another terrorist group is able to use general services that are offered broadly to everybody in order to commit a terrorist attack.

Now the lawyer for Twitter made the case this way. He said ultimately the court here should conclude that the failure to not do more to remove terrorist content does not amount to the knowing provision of substantial assistance to ISIS and therefore this case should go away. I think you'd have to say, Tyler, that ultimately Twitter today had a worse day in court than YouTube and Google did yesterday under that section 230 situation that you mentioned, a separate but related case yesterday. I think Google and YouTube fared better. The justice is a little bit more skeptical here today of YouTube, but at the end of the day the victims in both of these cases are going to have a long way to go to prove the provision of these kinds of general services to everybody ultimately amounts to aiding and abetting terrorist organization guys. It really, if I boil it down to the to the kernel, I guess I see it this way. The question is whether an internet company, a platform, is responsible legally for the content that is generated by a third party that they quote publish on their platform.

Right. Yep. And that's the question under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That's the 1996 law written, you know, many yons ago in internet time, but that provision of the law in 1996 said that ultimately these internet companies can't be held liable for things that third party people post on their platforms. That's the third party person's responsibility, not Twitter or Google or Facebook or any of the others. The issue today was interesting because it was about the Anti-Terrorism Act. So slightly different legal ground, similar set of victims though, people who've been killed or harmed in terrorist attacks, arguing that because these companies provided services to the ISIS group in this case, that that provided a benefit to ISIS, helped them recruit, helped them fundraise, and therefore there's some liability there.

The justices seemed a little skeptical of that argument, but ultimately they're going to have their day in court and we'll see where the Supreme Court comes down. Decision not expected until later in this term of the Supreme Court. It's fascinating that you said, and I hadn't thought of it, but it's quite clearly the case, the implications here could extend to businesses in completely unrelated fields like a gun manufacturer or a gun dealer, a pharmacy that sells a harmful drug that was not manufactured by that pharmacy but by a third party. Anyway, it's a fascinating case in front of the Supreme Court. Aiman Javers, thank you.

CNBC, Business, News, finance stock, stock market, news channel, news station, breaking news, us news, world news, cable, cable news, finance news, money, money tips, financial news, stock market news, stocks