Justice Thomas Appears to Issue Warning to Social Media Giants Censoring Conservatives


(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:15056822524681062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-1575-7657"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Documentary Director Says Amazon Pulled Clarence Thomas Film without Explanation


(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:15056822524681062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-1575-7657"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to issue a warning to social media companies that censor conservatives.

In an opinion on a Supreme Court decision regarding former President Donald Trump’s banning of individuals from following his Twitter account, Thomas speculated that the plaintiff’s grievances may have been undermined by the fact that the former Commander-in-Chief was kicked off social media platforms.

“It seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it,” the justice wrote in his statement. “Any control Mr. Trump exercised over the account greatly paled in comparison to Twitter’s authority, dictated in its terms of service, to remove the account ‘at any time for any or no reason.’ Twitter exercised its authority to do exactly that.”

The Supreme Court justice also raised the question of whether the companies violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

Thomas wrote, “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

He called out Google and Facebook owners specifically, writing, “Although both companies are public, one person controls Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg), and just two control Google (Larry Page and Sergey Brin).”

The Blaze reports:

Thomas carefully considers whether social media companies should be afforded legal protection by the government outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and laments that the current case doesn’t allow for the court to address the issue fully:

As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. 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.

“This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them,” Thomas concluded.

MSNBC's Joy Reid Used Racist Slur Calling Justice Thomas 'Uncle Clarence'


(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:15056822524681062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-1575-7657"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to issue a warning to social media companies that censor conservatives.

In an opinion on a Supreme Court decision regarding former President Donald Trump’s banning of individuals from following his Twitter account, Thomas speculated that the plaintiff’s grievances may have been undermined by the fact that the former Commander-in-Chief was kicked off social media platforms.

“It seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it,” the justice wrote in his statement. “Any control Mr. Trump exercised over the account greatly paled in comparison to Twitter’s authority, dictated in its terms of service, to remove the account ‘at any time for any or no reason.’ Twitter exercised its authority to do exactly that.”

The Supreme Court justice also raised the question of whether the companies violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

Thomas wrote, “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms.”

He called out Google and Facebook owners specifically, writing, “Although both companies are public, one person controls Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg), and just two control Google (Larry Page and Sergey Brin).”

The Blaze reports:

Thomas carefully considers whether social media companies should be afforded legal protection by the government outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and laments that the current case doesn’t allow for the court to address the issue fully:

As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. 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.

“This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them,” Thomas concluded.