Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been under attack by the Left for 40 years.
But he has been undeterred by the baseless slander from so-called progressives.
Now, Thomas has Joe Biden’s cronies shaking in their boots with one statement.
Big Tech companies were given a lot of latitude in the 1990s during the internet boom.
Nobody could have foreseen how Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms essentially became the public square.
The leaders of those companies have abandoned free speech principles, and they’re now doing the bidding of the Democrats and foreign interests.
And Clarence Thomas wants to put a stop to it.
Thomas again signaled that he’s interested in going after Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts Big Tech companies from liability based on what users on their platforms say.
Essentially, Twitter and Facebook do not have to hold to publisher standards like legacy media institutions.
The problem is that Big Tech platforms have been behaving like publishers by censoring people, and the people being silenced are almost all right-wingers or counter-narrative liberals.
In effect, social media sites suspending and banning accounts or placing “misinformation” or “potentially harmful” warnings on posts amounts to editing. Proponents of reforming Section 230 argue those actions make them more like a newspaper or magazine.
In a recent opinion, Thomas wrote, “Assuming Congress does not step in to clarify §230’s scope, we should do so in an appropriate case.”
The matter arose in a horrific sex trafficking case involving Facebook.
Breitbart reported that, “Thomas gave his opinion in a statement on the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Jane Doe v. Facebook. The case involved a child rapist who used Facebook to lure a 15-year old girl to a meeting, after which he repeatedly raped and beat her before trafficking her for sex…The state court allowed the sex trafficking case to proceed, but struck down the common law claims on Section 230 grounds.”
Thomas wrote that since the sex trafficking case was not struck down, it was not the right case to deliberate on Section 230.
But Thomas added, “We should, however, address the proper scope of immunity under §230 in an appropriate case.”
This isn’t the first time Thomas has raised questions about Section 230.
In separate cases, Thomas wrote, “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…Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.”
Thomas is eager to clarify the problem of Section 230.
If Big Tech firms are going to do the bidding of the political and financial elite and ban people for political reasons, then their section 230 protections run contrary to the principle of the public square being a place for free speech.
Stay tuned to Unmuzzled News for any updates to this ongoing story.