Justice Clarence Thomas: Section 230 Protections for Big Tech Are Too Broad

Breitbart ^ | October 14 2020 | TOM CICCOTTA

[knighthawk]

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is applied too broadly to social media companies in a recent letter. The law, which was passed at the beginning of the dot-com era, allows internet companies to avoid liability for content that has been posted by users on their platform. According to Thomas, “many courts have construed the law broadly to confer sweeping immunity on some of the largest companies in the world.”

According to a report by Axios, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that Section 230 of the CDA should be narrowed. Section 230 grants broad legal protections to social media companies with regard to content posted by users.

In a statement issued in response to a petition for writ of certiorari, Justice Thomas argued that Section 230 declares that social media platforms are not “publishers,” which means that they cannot be held liable for content posted by their users. Some industry analysts have suggested that platforms should be responsible for certain content on their platform, and for the censorship of content from their platforms, an act that makes them a publisher instead of a platform.

[jarwulf]

230 should be reformed but by removing the part that encourages censorship not the protections for users.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[PapaBear3625]

Bump.

Justice Thomas may have put a “shot across the bow” of some Internet companies, and with the addition of Justice Amy Barrett, may be looking for just the right case...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf

“Statement of THOMAS, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

MALWAREBYTES, INC. v. ENIGMA SOFTWARE GROUP USA, LLC
...
The decision is one of the few where courts have relied on purpose and policy to deny immunity under §230. But the court’s decision to stress purpose and policy is familiar.Courts have long emphasized nontextual arguments when interpreting §230, leaving questionable precedent in their wake.

I agree with the Court’s decision not to take up this case.I write to explain why, in an appropriate case, we should consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms”