{"version":"1.0","type":"rich","provider_name":"Acast","provider_url":"https://acast.com","height":250,"width":700,"html":"<iframe src=\"https://embed.acast.com/$/60518a52f69aa815d2dba41c/646d48ec26c80300107aea5e?\" frameBorder=\"0\" width=\"700\" height=\"250\"></iframe>","title":"The Big Internet Case That Wasn't","thumbnail_width":200,"thumbnail_height":200,"thumbnail_url":"https://open-images.acast.com/shows/60518a52f69aa815d2dba41c/show-cover.png?height=200","description":"<p>The Supreme Court last week issued the biggest opinion in the history of the internet—except that it didn’t. Rather, it issued an opinion in a case involving the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), finding there was no cause of action and thus dismissed for further consideration the biggest case in the history of the internet.</p><p><em>Lawfare</em> Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes sat down with <em>Lawfare</em> Senior Editors Scott R. Anderson,&nbsp; Alan Rozenshtein, and Quinta Jurecic to talk about Section 230, <em>Taamneh v. Twitter</em>, and <em>Gonzalez v. Google</em>.</p>","author_name":"The Lawfare Institute"}