I’m used to lower quality SCOTUS analysis getting posted here, but the first thing I wanted to note is that this site’s page design and playback widgets is actually pretty good. It’s also apparently not a news organization because I was ready to blindly throw the RSS feed into NetNewsWire and see what I thought of it by next week.<p>Second, it pretty much nails it in this paragraph:<p>> A few outcomes are possible. First, the court could uphold the lower court decisions that 230 immunizes Google from liability in this case. Second, the justices could find in favor of the Gonzalez family, taking 230 immunity off the table and causing the lawsuit to move on to its next question: whether YouTube’s conduct violates specific antiterrorism laws. Last, the court could ultimately decline to rule on the question, citing clerical issues or the low likelihood Gonzalez would succeed on the antiterrorism element.<p>Those are the possibilities. I had to go back and look at my notes from a few months ago because there was a similar and related case against Twitter that had oral arguments scheduled the same day, and where I ended up coming down based off a reading of the room is that most likely Section 230 is upheld entirely in the Google case by 9-0 or 8-1 and it’s not even close; but it might still be very slightly curtailed by the outcome of the Twitter case which wasn’t a Section 230 (Communications Decency Act) case per se but a Section 2333 case under the Anti-Terrorism Act.<p>Here is the Oral Argument and transcript of Gonzalez v. Google LLC: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/21-1333" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/21-13...</a><p>And this is Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/21-1496" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/21-14...</a><p>Both are worth listening to, and if you’re going to listen to both, listen to Gonzalez v Google first as it was argued first. Oral arguments are not always or not even usually the determining factor for how a case comes out, but reading the room, I just don’t see the votes for curtailing interpretations of 230 in any significant way on the Court.