US Supreme Court docket justices sounded cautious on Tuesday of tinkering with a authorized defend for social media corporations in a case that would reshape the web.

It pits the household of Nohemi Gonzalez, 23, who was shot by Islamic State gunmen in Paris in 2015, in opposition to YouTube proprietor Google.

They accuse the web big of aiding and abetting the terrorist group by recommending its movies to customers.

Google argued it isn’t liable, citing a decades-old regulation.

The statute – Part 230 of the Communications Decency Act – protects web firms from being held accountable over content material posted by third events on their platforms.

The 1996 regulation additionally permits firms to take away content material deemed to be in violation of the platform’s guidelines.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court docket justices heard almost three hours of arguments from attorneys representing US officers, Google and Ms Gonzalez’s household.

The case marks the primary time the Supreme Court docket has been requested to outline the scope of Part 230 and decide whether or not platforms like YouTube, Fb and Twitter are protected when their algorithms direct customers to sure info.

Throughout the listening to, justices famous that the present panorama of the web had vastly modified for the reason that regulation was first enacted 27 years in the past.

Justices additionally expressed concern whether or not a ruling in favour of Ms Gonzalez’s household might open the door to a deluge of litigation in opposition to tech firms.

“You’re making a world of lawsuits,” Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, mentioned. “Actually anytime you could have content material, you even have these presentational and prioritisation decisions that may be topic to go well with.”

Two different justices, Samuel Alito, a conservative, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal, acknowledged they have been confused by arguments made by a counsel for the Gonzalez household.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative, expressed concern that any ruling to restrict the authorized defend for web corporations “would actually crash the digital economic system”.

Ms Gonzalez’s household first sued Google in 2016, arguing the tech big had violated federal anti-terrorism legal guidelines by recommending movies posted by the Islamic State to its customers.

Two decrease courts have present in favour of Google, ruling the tech big was protected beneath Part 230.

The Supreme Court docket is predicted to launch a choice on the case by finish of June.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear an analogous case on the query of whether or not Twitter aided terrorism by permitting the Islamic State to make use of its platform.