Justice Clarence Thomas is a national treasure.
@JackPosobiec: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finds social media companies do not have First Amendment right to ban protected speech and that Section 230 is unconstitutional
Much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech. When a user does not already know exactly where to find something on the Internet—and users rarely do— Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time. It can suppress content by deindexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results. Grind, Schechner, McMillan, & West, How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 15, 2019. Facebook and Twitter can greatly narrow a person’s information flow through similar means. And, as the distributor of the clear majority of e-books and about half of all physical books, 4 Amazon can impose cataclysmic consequences on authors by, among other things, blocking a listing.
It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.
And a certain major Microsoft shareholder has become the largest US farmland owner, vaccine promoter, sun dimmer…
Justice Clarence Thomas is indeed a national treasure.
First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers
A long, detailed, legally referenced argument that “Private” Internet GIANTS are legally required to serve all comers as “common carriers”. The FEW internet and tech behemoths have monopolized the marketplace and as such MUST be regulated.
No shirt, no shoes, no service … OK … but anyone who rolls up in a wheelchair MUST be served. Right? Why? Basic Civil Rights. And what is Free Speech, if not a Basic Civil Right? A basic Human Right?
Essentially slaying the argument that Tech GIANTS are “private companies” who can do as they please having no obligation to the First Amendment. Calling Justice Thomas a “legal lightweight” or “Uncle Tom” won’t suffice as argument.
OK … I’m waiting for a certain commenter here to lay out his legal argument against Thomases solid legal opinion.
Thomas was one of the three justices who voted to hear the elections suits. Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito. All the rest including the 2 other Trump appointments, refused to do their duty.
I’m waiting for a certain commenter here to lay out his legal argument against Thomases solid legal opinion.
You didn’t read the document. Much like the old “Canadian judge rules MP3 sharing is legal” bollocks, what Thomas wrote has been outright ignored in favour of, yet again, neo-Luddite soi-disant conservatives pissing and moaning that their free shit’s being taken away.
The whole opinion is within the context of whether President Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked certain individuals from following his Twitter account. (Short answer: no.) There’s a lot of gassing on by Thomas about the hypothetical legal circumstances under which Congress might legislate limits on “digital communications platforms” such that the First Amendment could apply. Might, as in they’ve as yet done no such thing.
Here’s the actual important part of Thomas’ opinion that you didn’t read (emphasis added):
You, and Jack Posobiec, are just straight-up lying right now.
(Aside: it is clear from Thomas’ attempt to analogize Facebook et al to telegraph lines and railroads that he has no idea how the Internet works. This is a profound problem that real conservatives are going to have to remedy if we are to have any hope of winning the culture war)
Bippity boppity, get off private property.
Are FAANG servers private or public property?
These evil social media companies rely on herd mentality to thrive. If the herd simply deleted their idiotic Facebook accounts as well as that cesspool of hate, Twitter, they would fold up their tent and go away. It’s that simple.
But it will never happen because … Moo!
Thomas is our most brilliant and hardest working supreme. He’s swimming against the current, but God bless him.