OUR CRUCIAL SPRING CAMPAIGN IS NOW UNDERWAY
Please donate now to keep the mission and independent journalism of Common Dreams strong.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Following the recently concluded Summit of the Americas held April 17-19, in Trinidad and Tobago, President Barack Obama claimed that the U.S. defense budget was 600 times greater than that of Venezuela.
Military Overseas' Providers in the Chavez Era
A key facet of the Russian-Venezuelan military partnership has been Chavez's continued interest in purchasing state-of-the-art Russian weaponry. This process, which can be traced back to 2006, at the same time marked the beginning of Moscow's active return to the western hemisphere, as its influence in the region continually has spread through various precise spheres (military cooperation, commerce, trade and cultural relations). Meanwhile, Venezuela significantly has linked itself to Moscow and made Russia its most important military arms-provider in the region. This inevitably has fomented a comparison of the Caracas-Moscow relationship with the Havana-Soviet relationship dating back to the origins of the Cold War, even if such a comparison is not entirely warranted.
In a series of transactions, Venezuela has purchased military hardware from Russia in deals that now total between $4.4 and $5.4 billion. The agreements included the acquisition of Sukhoi-30-C planes and 50 Mi-type helicopters (types Mi-17B, Mi-35 and Mi-26). Of the Sukhois, 24 have already been delivered and the other 12 should arrive by the end of the year. After the U.S. State Department, in the early era of Chavez rule, thwarted Venezuela's plans to buy a shopping list of Spanish military inventory, including military air transports in 2006, because the aircraft contained U.S. components, which required Washington's authorization. After this, Caracas decided to purchase from Russia 10 Ilyushin IL-76E (NATO designation Candid) troop/cargo transports and two Ilyushin IL-78 (NATO designation Midas) in-flight tankers. In addition, Chavez purchased 100,000 Kalashnikov type 103 rifles as well as 1,000 Dragunov-type sniper rifles and a facility to assemble them. In September 2008 Chavez purchased a $1 billion anti-aircraft missile system from Russia as well.
It should also be noted that Venezuela has looked to military arms distributors other than Russia for political reasons and in order to diversify its suppliers. China is supplying the Venezuelan air force with 10 long-range JYL-1 radars. Three such radars have already been installed in Paraguana and Mene Mauroa in Falcon as well as in Apure state, which is close to the country's border with Colombia. All ten radars should become operational by 2013. Reports in February 2009 established that Venezuela had purchased 24 K-8 Karakorum trainer/light fighter planes from China. The first six will be delivered in early 2010 and will be used for anti-drug and training operations, according to Caracas. In February Chavez declared that "Venezuela will buy Chinese radar and airplanes specially designed for training ... and as part of modernizing our defense system."
In mid March 2009, Spain delivered the second of eight patrol boats they are building for Venezuela. The Spanish state-owned military shipyard Navantia signed a deal for the vessels with Venezuela in 2005. Reports point out that the patrol boats will have a helicopter deck and 35mm anti-aircraft guns.
The Kalashnikov Factories
Russia reached a deal with Caracas whereby the former will build manufacturing facilities in the latter's territory to fabricate AK rifles (types 103 and 104) as well as its respective ammo. This will be the first such factory ever to be built in the Americas for that particular kind of weaponry.
Caracas has remained somewhat silent regarding these assembly plants. However it is known that Russian technicians and equipment began to arrive in 2008 to begin constructing the facilities, which supposedly will be operational in 2010 and are being built in the inner Venezuelan city of Maracay, according to unofficial reports. The plant is being built in partnership with the Compania Anonima Venezolana de Industrias Militares (Anonymous Venezuelan Company of Military Industries - CAVIM) which is well known for manufacturing the Zamurana 9mm pistol. It is unclear if a new wing within CAVIM's existing sheds will be configured to house the Kalishnikov's assembly lines, or if one of the previously existing wings will be refigured. The government has not even publicly acknowledged the fact that Maracay is likely to be the location where the weapons will be manufactured. Nonetheless, it seems logical, as CAVIM maintains facilities there and the city is also home to several military headquarters, including that of the army's IV armor division.
Rumors and Orders not Fulfilled
There are also reports that, in the near future, Venezuela may acquire Russian-made T-72 tanks and BMP-3 armored personnel vehicles. Such rumors go back to last November, when Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited Caracas, but no deal had been established at that time.
Weapons Galore
Venezuela also has declared its intention to purchase a number of Russian-made warships and submarines, but as of yet no deal has been agreed upon. An October 2008 report by United Press International explained that Chavez aims to purchase at least three diesel-powered Varshavyanka (NATO designation Kilo) class submarines. However, such rumors have been in circulation for quite some time now. It was previously thought that Venezuela would strive to acquire as many as half a dozen such submarines, but recent reports have scaled back the number to just three. It is unclear if even this reduced order will ever materialize or be scuttled.
An April 2009 report by Nabi Abdullaev in DefenseNews points out that Caracas plans to acquire several dozen surface warships, including Project 14310 Mirage patrol boats, which are floating missile platforms designated to engage any adversary from a distance of seven to 130 kilometers. Other speculations include that Venezuela also seeks to acquire the new Russian-made Su-35 fighter aircraft as well as 20 or 30 TOR-M1 9M330 missiles.
In mid-April 2009, President Chavez announced that he had acquired a number of Russian-made surface-to-air missiles, namely the Igla SAM systems. According to reports, the portable missiles weigh 42 pounds and can reach 19,500 feet. However, the Russian arms-exporting monopoly, Rosoboronexport firm, quickly declared that no such deal had been agreed upon. Nevertheless, in
discussion with COHA, an analyst at the Federation of American Scientists pointed out that "the missiles on display during a recent military parade appear to be advanced Igla-S (SA-24) MANPADS, not first generation SA-7 Grails." The footage (which is available in YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_XT0nzvIGQ regarding a military parade held on April 19, 2009) appears to show dozens of Iglas, according to the FAS analyst.
The Myth of the Super-Rich Chavez
Perhaps what is most revealing about the power of the Venezuelan armed forces is the question of how much more equipment can Chavez afford to purchase for his military. The boom of military purchases has been centered around the price of oil, which brought about previously-unheard-of wealth to Venezuela's coffers. However, the world's financial crisis, the collapse of oil prices, and too many purchases in too many fields have brought about problems that Chavez couldn't easily have anticipated. Progress in the development of the Kalashnikov factory has been slow because Venezuela has not kept up with its payments, which has prompted Moscow to suspend sending technicians and equipment to the South American country. Also, due to a lack of Caracas' prompt payment, Spain has ceased to deliver the patrol boats. In an attempt to cut defense expenditures, the Chavez government has pushed for early retirement among its senior military officers and is also re-deploying slimmed-back military units.
In an interview with COHA, Rocio San Miguel, director of the Caracas based research center Asociacion Civil Control Ciudadano para la Seguridad, la Defensa y la Fuerza Armada Nacional (Citizen's Civilian Control Association for Security, Defense and the National Armed Forces - CCA, https://www.controlciudadano.org/ ) explained that "according to Chavez, Venezuela is spending anywhere between 20 to 30 billion dollars in military contracts, but this is likely an exaggeration, as can be seen in the lack of payment for the Kalishnikovs, the Sukhoi [...] and many of the newly acquired planes already lacking spare parts."
The Myth of Equality among the Chavez-era Armed Forces
The events of April 2002, namely the coup that briefly ousted Hugo Chavez from power, are important in order to understand how he has striven to re-organize a military hierarchy ever since. Analyst Rocio San Miguel argued that "the Bolivarian armed forces have gone from a de-professionalization to an open 'politization' to almost 'praetorianism.'" The Venezuelan specialist further argues that around 200 hardcore Chavista military officers are in control of the armed forces' most sensitive positions. In addition, Chavez openly has given preference to the army (himself being a former army officer) above the other branches of the military. For example, the newly acquired Sukhoi planes and the Mi helicopters are under the control of the army, not the air force.
Replacing Outdated Equipment?
In discussing Venezuela's military might, the emerging issue is whether the country has crossed an open, ambiguous line separating purchases meant to replace outdated equipment or perhaps an aggressive arms build up. After Chavez first came to power, the U.S. stopped providing Venezuela with spare parts for its U.S.-manufactured defense weaponry. At the same time that Chavez and his government upgraded the country's arsenal, they decommissioned aged OV-10 Bronco airplanes, as well as its French-made AMX-30 main battle tanks.
In addition, there may already be issues cropping up with the newly acquired Russian equipment. In early May 2009, one of the new Mi-35 helicopters crashed during a flight close to the Colombian border killing 18 soldiers, including Brigadier General Domingo Alberto Feneite. The cause for the crash has not been officially. The crash followed another incident involving new Russian equipment- this time a Mi-17 helicopter- which crashed in June of last year at Fort Tiuna, the military headquarters located in Caracas.
Military Size
Apart from reports on military purchases, important aspects of any military - for example, the size, morale and readiness of the Venezuelan armed forces - receive little mention by the international media. Chavez, a former lieutenant colonel, frequently praises his military's might assuring that it can successfully protect the nation's sovereignty if attacked (arguably by the U.S., which Chavez refers to as "the empire"). After a number of situations, such as the failed April 2002 coup against him that was followed by occasional purges, it seems that the current governing military chain of command is rather loyal to him.
The Venezuelan military forces have a combined strength of 140,000 troops consisting of both men and women. An interesting Chavez-era phenomenon has been the establishment of a paramilitary force in 2008, protected under the 2008 Ley Organica de la Fuerza Armada Bolivariana (Law of the Bolivarian Armed Forces) via Chapter V (articles 43-51). Chavez boasts that this militia has over 1 million members, but reports indicate that combat-ready individuals probably amount to no more than 10,000 to 15,000 members, in addition to its approximate 200,000 non-armed, non-combat members. Venezuelan analysts have described this militia as Chavez's personal "praetorian guard," being that the militia is not under the supervision of the armed forces, but instead, under the direct control of the president (article 43) and, for administrative issues, the defense minister as well.
Venezuela's Friends Aren't Necessarily Washington's Friends
Another concern is the role of the South American nation's military in conjunction with the government's foreign defense policy, namely the relationship that Caracas shares with other regional nations, which, more often than not, are Washington's active foes. Besides the aforementioned military purchases from China and Russia, Venezuela also has approached Teheran. In late April, Iran's defense minister, General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, visited Venezuela, where he met with his Venezuelan counterpart, Ramon Carrizalez. The Iranian defense minister described existing defense ties between the two nations as "comprehensive and strategic," according to the semi-official Fars news agency. While no defense alliance per se has been signed, conservatives in Washington see Caracas' efforts as a security issue revolving around a new kind of "axis of evil," pertaining to the Chavez administration's recently established relationship with Russia, China and Iran.
Caracas & Its Neighbors: Is There a Military Threat?
Another key question in discussing Venezuela's military might is what is the state of the country's existing relationship with each of its immediate neighbors? While it is true that Chavez is well-known for his occasional inflammatory declarations, which tend to raise alarms in weaker bordering countries as well as among conservatives and Cold War-era hawks in Washington, those who are familiar with his style see this as more a matter of bark than bite.
An overview of Venezuela and its series of security relationships with the outside world, as well as regional issues with its neighbors may help to illuminate this discussion:
- Guyana. Venezuela has had a historical border dispute with the country though the disagreement has never resulted in warfare. In November 2006, a Venezuelan general led a group of around 30 soldiers into Guyanese territory and destroyed several Guyanese-owned dredges, however, the situation did not escalate. It is unclear if Chavez gave the order for the general to carry out this operation or if the military officer acted on his own accord.
- Netherland Antilles and Aruba. Chavez has declared that Venezuela had historical claims to the islands, located only a stone's throw away from Venezuela's coast. It is a matter of discussion if Chavez's statements were made because he believes in them or to confront the U.S. (which has two military bases in Aruba and Curacao) or Holland. At one point, Chavez labeled a former Dutch defense minister as "Washington's pawn." The Antilles are part of the Kingdom of Holland, and falling under its defense perimeter, would thus be defended by the Dutch in the case of a conflict. Holland and Venezuela held military exercises in order to boost confidence building in November 2008. Any attempt by Venezuela to militarily take control of the Antilles would erode any good standing Chavez may have with regional governments in the Caribbean, not to mention destroying the lucrative commercial relationship between Venezuela and Holland and, ultimately, prospects to improve Caracas' relation with Washington.
- Brazil. The regional behemoth and Caracas held anti-drug military exercises on August 2008. Diplomatic, political and commercial relations aside, it would be an outlandish scenario to envisage strife between the two countries. The border between Venezuela and Brazil lies in the least developed part of the Amazon, which without any roads, would make it impossible to utilize traditional warfare. Such a conflict would have to be based around guerrilla-tactics (for which Venezuela's AK rifles would be useful) as well as heavily relying on helicopters for the transportation of troops and equipment (the Venezuelan Mi-type helicopters would be a plus). But the disparity of strength between the two countries all but rules out the likelihood of violence.
- Colombia. The country's historical tensions with Venezuela date back to pre-Chavez years. However, chronically strained relations between Uribe and Chavez have not helped this situation. Tensions have come about, among other factors, from Chavez declaring his sympathy for the FARC. In March 2008, when Colombia bombarded Ecuadorean territory where FARC leaders were hiding, Chavez sent his troops to the border, declaring he would go to war with Colombia in order to protect Ecuador (ruled by his like-minded friend Rafael Correa). In March 2009, Venezuela launched operation "Sentinel," deploying the country's armed forces and National Guard along its 2,219-kilometer border with Colombia. The goal of the operation, according to Caracas, was to fight crime and protect "national sovereignty." The operation followed a verbal shouting between Chavez and Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos earlier that month.
A Regional Military Power
The rhetoric coming from both Caracas and Washington has helped project a mirage of Venezuela's military power. While Chavez strives to highlight his country's might, a number of his attempted acquisition efforts did not come to fruition, such as the purchase of aircraft from Spain. In addition, his acquisitions may prepare Venezuela for conventional warfare with neighboring states; U.S. conservatives seem to view the Caracas-Moscow relationship as being set in stone. However, it is more likely that the relationship is heavily based on revenue, which continues to flow in and are the cause of Venezuela's expanding arsenal.
Military strength cannot be simply judged by the number of operational tanks or military aircraft one possesses, but by the size and level of preparation and training of its armed forces. Thus far, Chavez has had complications with sectors of his military, but the rank-and-file troops continue to remain loyal to him and to the constitutional order. Exercises like those carried out with the Russian navy in November 2008 are good for morale, and also helps mold the Venezuelan military into an authentic regional power, though certainly not a hemispheric security threat, given its still very limited capacity to project its force.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
May 13th, 2009
Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.
"The single biggest threat to the U.S. banking system is more concentration," said the Massachusetts Democrat. "A bank as big as JPMorgan shouldn't be allowed to get even bigger."
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren raised alarm about the recent sale of First Republic Bank to JPMorgan Chase—which followed a government takeover of the former—in a letter to financial regulators and a series of questions during a Thursday hearing.
"The failure of First Republic Bank shows how deregulation has made the too-big-to-fail problem even worse," the Massachusetts Democrat said after the controversial sale earlier this month. "Congress needs to make major reforms to fix a broken banking system."
Ahead of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing, Warren wrote to two officials who appeared before the panel Thursday morning: Martin Gruenberg, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Michael Hsu, acting head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
"The executives at First Republic—who took excessive risks and did not appropriately manage them as interest rates increased throughout 2022 and 2023—bear primary responsibility for this failure," Warren wrote in the letter, dated Wednesday. "I am continuing to seek answers from the bank's executives, and attempting to pass bipartisan legislation that would claw back their excessive compensation."
"But the outcome of this seizure and sale were deeply troubling: It resulted in a $13 billion cost to the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund—which will ultimately be passed on to ordinary bank consumers across the country—and made JPMorgan, the nation's biggest bank, even bigger," she added. "JPMorgan will also record a $2.6 billion gain from the deal."
Warren asked Gruenberg and Hsu to prepare to address the topic at the committee's hearing and also requested written responses to a series of questions by the end of the month.
"One set of questions involves the $13 billion loss to the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund, and why the fund was allowed to take this loss while the FDIC deal made nearly $50 billion worth of uninsured deposits at First Republic—including $30 billion in uninsured deposits from big banks—whole," she noted. "My second set of concerns involves the decision to choose JPMorgan—which was already the nation's largest bank—to acquire First Republic and become even bigger."
During the hearing, Warren explained that "when the FDIC sells a failed bank, the law requires that you choose the highest bidder that will result in the lowest cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund—but the law also requires signoff from the OCC, and the OCC's job, by law, is to consider whether the merger would pose 'risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system.'"
The senator questioned Hsu about the decision to sell to JPMorgan versus PNC or Citizens Bank, given that selling to either of the latter would have posed less of a risk, based on one metric used by financial regulators that is notably influenced by bank size.
\u201cThe single biggest threat to the U.S. banking system is more concentration. I am troubled by @USOCC Acting Comptroller Michael Hsu's decision to approve @jpmorgan's acquisition of First Republic Bank. A bank as big as JP Morgan shouldn't be allowed to get even bigger.\u201d— Elizabeth Warren (@Elizabeth Warren) 1684436759
"Comptroller Hsu, your job, by law, is to determine risk to the system from making big banks even bigger, and you have a clear metric for doing that," Warren said. "So how do you explain approving a sale to a banking giant that increases the risk to the banking system by somewhere between nearly 800% and 1,400% more than selling to other bidders? Did you just ignore the fact that a failure at JPMorgan would blow a hole in our banking system... and let them grow by $200 billion?"
After insisting that "for every merger application we follow the law, we follow our guidelines, we follow our policies and procedures," Hsu said focusing only on the metric Warren cited would not have been "wise," and if that approach had been taken, "I fear that there would have been greater financial instability that weekend."
As her time expired, Warren—who was visibly frustrated by Hsu's lack of a broader explanation for choosing JPMorgan Chase—declared that "the single biggest threat to the U.S. banking system is concentration."
"We're all pushing harder for merger guidelines so that we don't get more concentration in the banking system," she told Hsu. "You are the one person who was supposed to use judgment on the question... 'Between multiple sales, which one was the right one to go with, and which one presented more risk to the banking system?'"
"According to your own metric, you chose the one that gives us more concentration in the system," the senator stressed. "I am very troubled by that decision."
"It is an exhibition of unadulterated hate and racism," said one Palestinian activist. "Beyond inflammatory."
Israeli government officials including far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir joined tens of thousands of ultra-nationalists participating in Thursday's inflammatory "Flag March" in occupied East Jerusalem, an event at which police and demonstrators attacked Palestinians and journalists while chanting slogans including "death to Arabs" and "your village will be burned."
Ben-Gvir, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and Transport Minister Miri Regev were among the Israeli officials who took part in the annual march, which celebrates Israel's conquest and illegal occupation of East Jerusalem in 1967.
Marcher Limor Son Har-Melech, a lawmaker from Ben Gvir's far-right Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, toldThe Times of Israel that she was participating to celebrate "our victory over the Arabs."
\u201cWhen referring to the upcoming \u201cJerusalem Day\u201d or flag day march, this is what we\u2019re talking about: an anti-Palestinian hate fest that includes attacking homes, businesses & Palestinians. It is an exhibition of unadulterated hate and racism. Beyond inflammatory. Video from 2021\u201d— Nour Odeh \ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf8 #NojusticeNopeace (@Nour Odeh \ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf8 #NojusticeNopeace) 1684359874
In Gaza, Israeli forces used live and "less lethal" munitions to break up a Palestinian demonstration that took place along the besieged strip's border with Israel, according toAl Jazeera.
"We will not surrender and we will continue to demand our rights and defend our occupied lands and our sanctities in Jerusalem," Palestinian protester Osama Abu Qamar told the Qatar-based news network.
The Jerusalem-based NGO Ir Amim called the Israeli demonstrations a "display of incitement, Jewish dominance, and racism."
Israeli marchers threw rocks at journalists, hitting at least two reporters in the head and wounding them, Middle East Eyereports.
\u201cUs journalists are under attack by participants in the flag march in #Jerusalem. \n\nThey cheer every time they hit us with projectiles.\u201d— \u211d\ud835\udd60\ud835\udd64\ud835\udd5a\ud835\udd56 \ud835\udd4a\ud835\udd54\ud835\udd52\ud835\udd5e\ud835\udd5e\ud835\udd56\ud835\udd5d\ud835\udd5d (@\u211d\ud835\udd60\ud835\udd64\ud835\udd5a\ud835\udd56 \ud835\udd4a\ud835\udd54\ud835\udd52\ud835\udd5e\ud835\udd5e\ud835\udd56\ud835\udd5d\ud835\udd5d) 1684421979
Middle East Eye said that marchers in Jerusalem's Old City beat Palestinian residents, and when Israeli police intervened, they assaulted Palestinian victims under attack instead of protecting them.
March participants stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque—one of the holiest sites to both Muslims and Jews—and insulted the prophet Mohammed, who Muslims believe was the messenger of God.
Ofer Cassif, an Israeli lawmaker from the left-wing Hadash coalition, called the flag march a "violent parade presented as a joyous dance."
"Rioting gangs backed by Ben-Gvir and the fascist government are bullying Arabs to show them who's in charge, "Cassif told Haaretz. "This is disgusting Kahanism in its peak."
\u201cIsrael's right wing uses Flag Day to violently remind Palestinians each year that Israel will stop at nothing to kick them out of their own homeland.\n\nThey fly Israel's national symbol as a symbol of Palestinian exclusion.\n\nThat's apartheid.\u201d— IMEU (@IMEU) 1684421511
Cassif was referring to the Jewish supremacist movement once led by Meir Kahane, the Orthodox rabbi convicted of terrorism before being assassinated in 1990. Ben-Gvir was convicted in 2007 of incitement to racism and supporting the Kahanist terror group Kach after he advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
There were other Israeli marches in cities and towns including Lod—known to Palestinians as Lydda—site of a 1948 massacre and death march as Jewish militias seized control of the area.
Thursday's marches came three days after, and stood in stark contrast with, Palestinians' commemoration of Nakba Day, a remembrance of the ethnic cleansing of more than 750,000 Arabs from over 400 villages—sometimes by massacres—during the foundation of the modern Israeli state in 1948. For the first time ever, the United Nations officially commemorated the Nakba.
"Today's decisions should be commended for recognizing that the rules we apply to the internet should foster free expression, not suppress it," said the deputy director of ACLU's National Security Project.
Civil liberties advocates on Thursday praised the U.S. Supreme Court for a pair of unanimous rulings that they say uphold the right to free speech on online platforms.
The high court's decisions in Twitter v. Taamneh and Gonzalez v. Google represent "a win for free expression on the internet," the ACLU tweeted.
Alongside its partners, the ACLU "filed amicus briefs in both cases urging the court to ensure online platforms are free to promote, demote, and recommend content without legal risk in order to protect political discourse, cultural development, and intellectual activity," the group noted in a statement.
"Free speech online lives to fight another day," said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU's National Security Project. "Twitter and other apps are home to an immense amount of protected speech, and it would be devastating if those platforms resorted to censorship to avoid a deluge of lawsuits over their users' posts. Today's decisions should be commended for recognizing that the rules we apply to the internet should foster free expression, not suppress it."
According to ACLU's statement:
In Twitter v. Taamneh, the plaintiffs claimed that Twitter was liable for allegedly "aiding and abetting" an attack in Istanbul by ISIS because Twitter failed to adequately block or remove content promoting terrorism — even though it had no specific knowledge that any particular post furthered a terrorist act. The court held that hosting, displaying, and recommending videos, without more, is not aiding and abetting terrorism.
As the ACLU's amicus brief in Twitter v. Taamneh explained, if the Supreme Court allowed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' startlingly broad interpretation of the Anti-Terrorism Act to stand, online intermediaries—like internet service providers, social media platforms, publishers, and other content distributors—would be forced to suppress the First Amendment-protected speech of many of their users. The brief explained that, given the vast scale of speech occurring on platforms like Twitter every day, online intermediaries would be compelled to use blunt content moderation tools that over-restrict speech by barring certain topics, speakers, or types of content in order to avoid claims that they went too far in making that information available to an interested audience. Even today, platforms frequently take down content mistakenly identified as offensive or forbidden, for example, by confusing a post about a landmark mosque with one about a terrorist group.
In Gonzalez v. Google, the court noted that in light of its decision in Twitter v. Taamneh, "little if any" of the plaintiffs' case remained viable. It was therefore unnecessary to address the question of whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized the platform's recommendation algorithms. The court remanded the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether any part of the plaintiffs' argument could move forward in light of the Twitter ruling.
David Greene, director of civil liberties at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), also welcomed the court's rulings in both cases.
EFF is "pleased that the court found that an online service cannot be liable for terrorist attacks merely because their services are generally used by terrorist organizations the same way they are used by millions of organizations around the globe," Greene said in a statement.
He added that EFF is "pleased that the court did not address or weaken Section 230, which remains an essential part of the architecture of the modern internet and will continue to enable user access to online platforms."
Section 230 is a federal liability shield that generally prevents social media and other websites from facing defamation lawsuits or being held accountable for third-party content generated by users or paid advertisers. The immunity provision has come under increased scrutiny from many members of Congress in both major parties.
One countervailing opinion about the court's decision to not reexamine Section 230 came from the Real Facebook Oversight Board, a coalition of researchers and advocates who seek to counter the harms associated with the profit-maximizing algorithms used by Facebook and Instagram, both of which are now owned by Meta.
"Meta wasn't on trial today in the Supreme Court, but their rapacious business model was," the group said in a statement. "In no surprise, the extremist U.S. Supreme Court chose profit over privacy and safety. More than ever, U.S. lawmakers must act to pass sweeping, meaningful regulation of Big Tech—before more users are harmed or worse by hate speech that platforms won't and can't stop."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), however, echoed the assessment shared by the ACLU and EFF, calling the court's decision to leave Section 230 untouched "good news."
"Despite being unfairly scapegoated for everything wrong with the internet, Section 230 remains vitally important to protecting online speech," argued Wyden, who co-wrote the 1996 statute with former Rep. Chris Cox (R-Calif.). "My focus remains helping end abusive practices by tech companies while protecting freedom of information online."
According toPolitico, the high court's decisions "mark a major win for the tech industry, which has argued that narrowing Section 230 could be disastrous for the internet if platforms could be sued over content-moderation decisions. But the resolution leaves the door open to future showdowns—potentially in Congress—over the breadth of the legal protection the internet firms enjoy."