• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, Yesterday

At least one Supreme Court justice appears interested in considering whether Meta Platforms can be sued for allegedly recommending extremist material to Dylann Roof, who killed nine people in a 2015 racially motivated mass shooting.

Earlier this year, a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that family members of shooting victim Clementa Pinckney could not proceed with a lawsuit against Meta over the shooting. The panel ruled 2-1 that the platform was protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes web companies from liability for publishing content posted by users.

Last month, Pinckney's widow and daughter asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling, arguing that Section 230 doesn't immunize companies for their recommendations.

"Neither Section 230’s text nor its history suggests that Meta should be immune ... for its own choices to manipulate users by recommending the most damaging content possible,” lawyers for the family argue. “And neither Section 230’s text nor its history provides immunity for suggesting that a person join a group of white supremacists.”

Meta initially waived its right to reply to that petition, but last week the Supreme Court asked the company for a response.

That move signals that at least one justice is interested in the case, but doesn't indicate the court will agree to hear arguments.

The legal dispute dates to 2022, when Pinckney's family alleged in a complaint against Meta that Roof “was shown so much white supremacist propaganda that he believed the heinous act he ultimately committed at Mother Emanuel was necessary to spark a race war and save the white race.”

The family alleged that Facebook was defectively designed, and that the company was negligent.

U.S. District Court Judge Mark Gergel dismissed the case in September 2023, ruling that the claims were barred by Section 230.

Pinckney then appealed to the 4th Circuit, which upheld the dismissal, writing that the claims in the complaint “are inextricably intertwined with Facebook’s role as a publisher of third-party content.”

“While there is widespread concern about Facebook’s use of its algorithm to arrange and sort racist and hate-driven content, acts of arranging and sorting content are integral to the function of publishing,” Circuit Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Albert Diaz.

Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing partially dissented, noting that one of the allegations against Facebook was that it recommended Roof join extremist groups.

“Recommending that a user join a group, connect with another user, or attend an event is Facebook’s own speech, for which it can be held liable,” she wrote, adding that she would have returned the matter to the district court for further proceedings.

Milano countered in the majority opinion that the complaint didn't allege that Facebook recommend that Roof “join a specific hate group” or that Roof joined a hate group based on a “Facebook algorithm referral.”

Meta is expected to file its arguments with the Supreme Court by August 8.