Snapchat owner, Snap was sued by a Texas teen who accused them of failing to protect young users from sexual predators. In Court case, he said that one female teacher admitted to having sex with her.
The lawsuit was dismissed by a lower court while another appeal against the decision was dismissed by the court because he was still a minor at the time of bringing it forward. The Communications Decency Act shields internet firms from being held accountable for any user-created content.
Granting this appeal are conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
This is the background to the case Bonnie Gass Marzok When it started in 2021; Geis-Mazzok, a 36-year-old high school science teacher and the plaintiff aged 15 then lived in Conroe Texas, approximately 40 miles (65 kilometers) north of Houston.
She pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse which led to her criminally charged in court papers and subsequently sentenced to ten years behind bars for that crime
Plaintiffs claim that Guess-Mazock used Snapchat, famous for images and videos that disappear after some time, as an incentive to make him fall into her trap through sending him sexually explicit material. The lawsuit alleges that starting in 2021 until its discovery after an overdose on drugs provided or financed by Giss-Mazzoque she has been raped for about one and half years
Doe filed a suit against Snap, his local district public school, and Mazock in 2022. He petitions only his claim against Santa Monica’s based company at issue when making his appeal before the Supreme Court; such demand does not specify specific monetary damages
The plaintiffs have named Snapchat as being responsible for three instances of carelessness under Texas law. Moreover, they claim that this corporation failed its duty to safeguard minors from online predators who were lured there due to privacy assurances offered by Snapchat app’s vanishing message feature.
The lawsuit against Snapchat was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal in Houston, in 2022, because of Section 230 immunity granted to the company. The plaintiffs appealed Rosenthal’s decision before the Supreme Court and were rejected in 2001.
The judge refused to entertain any discussion on Section 230 during a case concerning Google’s video-sharing site YouTube and social media platform Twitter renamed as X in 2023.
Section 230 shields “interactive computer services” from being treated as information providers according to its wording for legal purposes.
Thomas’ dissent criticized the court’s refusal to grant the appeal, which he joined Gorsuch saying that social media entities are increasingly making use of this provision as “a get-out-of-jail-free card”
“I … platforms they would bear complete responsibility for their websites under constitutionally protected speech but when it comes with liability they avoid any obligation and carry exemption more than almost any other party,” wrote Thomas. Other countries have more immunity from lawsuits
Joe Biden, the Democrat President and his Republican predecessor Donald Trump, among others across partisan lines call for revisiting Section 230 so that these companies can be held accountable over their contents.
