Clarence Thomas: Supreme Court Will Soon Have to Address Tech Censorship

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas today outlined a detailed legal argument for why social media companies might need to be subject to strict rules forbidding them from denying service to users for any reason or no reason, including the possibility of designating them as common carriers — which would effectively eliminate their ability to ban or censor users for legal, First Amendment protected speech.

Thomas outlined his opinion in a concurrence to reject a case that began under the Trump administration, challenging the President’s right to block users from his Twitter feed.





https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/04/05/clarence-thomas-scotus-tech-censorship/




Thomas is right! I’m glad he took that case as an opportunity to bring this issue up. That these public accommodations platforms are so narrowly and tightly held in near monopoly conditions and that they are regulated by congress and can be intimidated into doing government bidding in silencing opposition speech makes them effectively agents of the government in their crackdown on conservatives speech and expression are things the SCOTUS is going to have to examine.

 

I’m glad that Clarence Thomas brought this issue up and that hopefully a legal remedy will be found regarding the use of gatekeepers to engage in censorship based on viewpoint discrimination against Christians and conservatives.

 

Thomas is honestly the best Justice on the Court. Roberts is arguably the worst.

 

This is funny.

Just a few years ago, Republicans were up in arms over the public requiring large internet companies to require these companies to have fair access in access and pricing.

"That is cruelty to huge data companies - [Republican] Free Enterprise means these can do anything they want to do! Raise or lower prices to special interests, refuse to give access anyone anywhere anytime! Businesses most be free!!"

I awake the incredible convoluted, double-talk, nutcase excuses for a pathetic Right Wing excuse-monger like Thomas to try to claim his last year's reasons for terribly negative excuses for jurisprudence is now this year's tasty Republican Sausage! (Please do not read the ingredients, please)

 

So Fox News should be able to pick who it gives a voice to, but not twitter?

 

Thomas is correct, and I hope it comes to pass.

Censorship against dissenters and whistleblowers might be the largest single factor in the decline of democratic principles.

 

Apples and oranges. ISP's and websites are not even comparable save perhaps the growing Alphabet monopoly.

 

You — and apparently the partisan hack of a justice — do not understand what the first amendment says if you believe it applies to anyone except government.

 

Why should “christians” and neocons be allowed to decide who they do business with but everyone else should be forced to do business with them?

Oh, let me guess, y’all finally figured out y’all are in the minority... Strange how that works.

 

The court should stay out of it. It is a free speech issue if government gets involved. For now it is not. People should have the choice to access any website they wish without government interference. They should be able to read the website and decide for themselves what is right or wrong. I personally wouldn't access social media but I defend the right of others to do it. I think people or, at least, most people are smart enough not to be swayed by political talking points from the other side. Let them decide for themselves.

Having said that there could be something the court could do about social media making it hard to impossible for competitors to exist. I believe we have laws about that but, oddly, the government doesn't want to enforce them. Embrace free speech from all sides.

 

WOW... an article that actually cites the source material. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf

At this point, I have no doubt that the social media companies are acting as a government, as opposed to a private, actors when Congress forces the executives to attend a hearing under oath for the specific purpose of coercing these companies to limit speech on their platform. The existence of immunity against all third-party suits strengthens the gravity of first amendment concerns, because social media platforms could, without civil liability, limit free speech on behalf of outspoken politicians threatening anti-trust or regulation.

 

Private businesses are under no obligation to give voice to anyone. Thomas is dead wrong on this issue.

 

Well you would be wrong. Social media makes money by selling eyeballs on pages, and they have every godamn right to maximize their revenue.

 

Fox does not enjoy a protection from libel or slander laws, and as such has no financial immunity from civil law suits for its content. That you don't understand or know the difference, well, it is typical.

 

Oh the irony. You know nothing about constitutional law. There's exceptions. According to the Supreme Court in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (1991), "Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints." An exception exists when private, non-governmental actors are acting in concert or conspiracy with government.

The same element of "governmental actor" and similar exceptions exists in interpretations of other constitutional provisions. A private person searching the home of another for evidence of a crime due to the suggestion of a child court employee allowed the plaintiff to bring a 4th amendment claim against unreasonable searches, because the private person.

 

Fox's content is all created by Fox and its guests. Making social media liable for what its subscribers say doesn't make common sense. Their mistake is in choosing who to ban. If they want to ban someone for a political opinion then they need to make a rule for everyone that political opinions are not allowed. I also see no reason that the web sites themselves can't post opinions. As an example, if the web site feels that a post is untrue, they should be able to say so and let the original poster defend their position. I would recommend banning political posts altogether. One can be "social" without politics.

For businesses to get involved in politics is incompetent and stupid. It only brings trouble and reduced revenue. Business people should be above politics. Vote as they see fit and stay out of the public discussion. It doesn't help them.

 

You're wrong because nothing you've said addresses the argument I made in my post. I'm not even talking about eyeballs and revenue. I'm discussing government officials utilizing private companies to put limits on free speech.

 

In the law, the curation of content is at the discretion of the platform and thus make them a publisher. Since the big 5 are now all actively curating their platforms, the illusion that they were pubic content is no longer the case. And for that, they don't deserve the financial immunity they enjoy.

 

Are you claiming that Twitter is acting to conspire with the government?

I would say something about irony but I fear it would be lost here.

 

If the government uses threats to compel a private person to violate someone's constitutional right then it meets the exception of "government action" per constitutional caselaw.

You're so ignorant of constitutional law that you've resorted to calling Justice Thomas a hack even though the man is known among liberal and conservative legal professionals as one of the best writers and legal analysts on the bench. He's not even taking a position yet. It's just dictum.

 

Who's constitutional rights have been violated? You've yet to show anything more than you feeeeeelz the gubmit is directing social media sites to restrict people from posting on their own f***ing platform!

 

Roberts has erred a couple of times. But to call him worst is to rank him worse than the Democrat justices.

 

Good so give me your password for your account. I want to post stuff on it. You’re not going to censor me are you?

 

It is one thing when private party forums ban you for things like attacking posters (including Facebook, YouTube and Twitter) and when they attack you for your views.

It takes millions of dollars to run most public platforms and they earn a lot of money for those having them. And we had the case of a sitting president being banned. That should never have happened.

It was not just Trump. This nation had several million others banned for supporting Trump.

 

When you post on Youtube or Facebook or Twitter, did you appoint them as your ruler?