The US Supreme Court has turned away an appeal that sought to hold Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook responsible for radicalizing the man who killed nine people at a South Carolina church. The court refused to allow a lawsuit claiming Facebook’s algorithms helped fuel the shooter’s extremist views.
The case stems from the tragic 2015 shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston. Dylann Roof, a white supremacist, opened fire during a prayer service, killing nine, including Reverend Clementa Pinckney. One of Pinckney’s daughters, identified only as M.P. in court papers, filed the lawsuit. She says Facebook’s algorithm used Roof’s online activity to connect him with groups that reinforced and intensified his hateful beliefs. M.P. was inside the church during the attack, hiding under a desk with her mother.
Lower courts had already dismissed the lawsuit, citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law protects internet platforms from being sued over content their users post. It shields companies like Facebook from liability for how their algorithms might surface or recommend content.
Section 230 has been controversial for years. Critics on the left argue it allows platforms to overlook hate speech and extremism. On the right, complaints center on the belief that it protects platforms that suppress conservative viewpoints. In recent years, some tech companies have taken steps to address these concerns. For example, Google agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle claims from former President Donald Trump related to suspensions from YouTube after the January 6 Capitol riot.
The Supreme Court has previously passed on making big changes to Section 230. In 2023, it decided not to narrow the law despite cases involving terrorist content. Instead, the court limited the use of a federal anti-terrorism law to sue tech companies.
With this latest decision, the Supreme Court leaves the existing protections for social media platforms in place, keeping the door closed on claims that algorithm-driven recommendations can be grounds for lawsuits tied to violent acts. The case, known as M.P. v. Meta, underscores ongoing debates over the responsibilities of tech giants and the limits of legal protections in the digital age.