Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Big Tech Doesn’t Have Right to Ban Free Speech

LifeNews.com ^ | April 5, 2021 | Steven Ertelt

[yoe]

The Supreme Court issued an order today that President Donald Trump is now free to block whomever he chooses on Twitter, which will be difficult now that the liberal social media web site has banned his account. But ( an opinion Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued) is drawing significant attention.

Thomas warned Big Tech that legislatures or the Supreme Court may soon have to step in and stop social media platforms for denying free speech rights to pro-life conservatives — saying places like Facebook and Twitter are silence people “at any time for any or no reason.”

“As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms,” Justice Thomas wrote in a separate opinion. “The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions.”

[snip] “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors,” Justice Thomas added.

[yoe]

I hope Justice Roberts is paying attention to Justice Thomas. What a different country this would this be had it been The Justice Thomas Court instead of Justice Roberts....

[proud American in Canada]

How I wish that were the case.

[SmokingJoe]

It IS the case.
Big tech cannot ban free speech.

[BobL]

“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Big Tech Doesn’t Have Right to Ban Free Speech”

If it hadn’t cost us the country, I might disagree with Justice Thomas - but it did, so I’m TOTALLY with him.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

"The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms."

This is the part of Justice Thomas' opinion I think is the most important. Repealing Section 230 will not be nearly enough - platforms like Facebook and Twitter occupy monopoly positions in digital communication. It's not acceptable that the likes of Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg can take it upon themselves to decide what is and is not acceptable speech for all Americans, and their monopoly powers currently allow them to do exactly that.

The only answer is for all social media platforms to be regulated as common carriers.

[buckalfa]

"It IS the case.

Big tech cannot ban free speech.

I am on your side, but there is that pesky Constitution that only bans the government from abridging free speech. Tech is going to have to be reined in by legislation and RICO.

[SmokingJoe]

Nobody can ban free speech including big tech.
Even Stalin couldn’t really ban free speech, even after slaughtering millions of Russians.
Big tech have some power over what is posted on their platforms. That’s it. They have no power over what anyone says outside their platforms which are relatively recent developments anyways.

[SaxxonWoods]

It’s about time someone with his gravitas said it.

[stratboy]

Thanks to Bush the Chimp, that never happened.

[Cen-Tejas]

I’m going to disagree slightly. Zuckerberg and Dorsey and their ilk need to be opened up to the 1,352,027 lawyers in the US by removing any litigation protections that now exist.

The lawyers, like buzzards roosting on a dead tree, will, given the time, swoop in and clean their carcasses. Moreover, in WORST case grievance situations, personal liability, perhaps limited to some degree, should be available to the plaintiffs.
A few billion dollar judgments attached to their checking accounts will get Dorsey’s and Zuckerberg’s attention.

[rockabyebaby]

Hmmmm...they can't, BUT, they did ban free speech, so what do you plan to do about it Justice Thomas???? Hmmmmm?????

[gitmo]

It isn’t stopping them.

[proust]

Glad he’s saying something, but wish he had back when it mattered.

[rlmorel]

Justice Thomas is a man. A real man.

[EasySt]

“Nobody can ban free speech including big tech.“
~~~~~~~~~~~

So how does one today have a national discussion online, without the consent of big tech.

My banned 10,000 Tweet account says they CAN, and DO ban free speech where it counts the most.

National discussions.

~Easy

[Gay State Conservative]

Justice Thomas is one courageous guy.

[Kadric]

I would say it would fall with in the Constitution for government to not be allowed to have any dealings with those that restrict constitutional rights.

[SmokingJoe]

Can’t help you with Twitter. Never been a member of it. I can tell you though that I say and discuss and debate whatever I want, wherever I want.
Twitter and Facebook etc have ZERO power over me since I’ve never joined them before.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[T.B. Yoits]

...but there is that pesky Constitution that only bans the government from abridging free speech. Tech is going to have to be reined in by legislation and RICO.

Once they censor, donate to political candidates and causes, take payment for political campaigns and causes, etc., they're a content provider and not interactive computer services and are no longer exempt from liability under 47 U.S. Code § 230.