Justice Thomas grumbles over Trump's social media ban

[DonViejo]

Thomas’ complaints track closely with those of Republicans, but the GOP is not alone in its concerns about big tech.

By JOSH GERSTEIN

04/05/2021 10:58 AM EDT

The decision by social media giants Twitter and Facebook to ban former President Donald Trump from their platforms appears to have drawn the ire of one of America’s most prominent jurists: Justice Clarence Thomas.

As the Supreme Court issued an order Monday declaring moot a lawsuit over Trump’s blocking of some Twitter users from commenting on his feed, Thomas weighed in with a 12-page lament about the power of social media firms like Twitter.

“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,” 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.”

Noting that Trump had 89 million followers at the time he was banned in January, Thomas singled out the owners of Google and Facebook by name, arguing that the firms are currently unaccountable personal fiefdoms with massive power.

more
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/05/justice-clarence-thomas-trump-twitter-ban-479046

[spanone]

1. 'one of America's most prominent jurists' ?????

Surely politico jests

[dalton99a]

5. One of America's most prominent MUTE AND DEAF jurists

[MurrayDelph]

13. They forgot

to include the sign.

[Claire Oh Nette]

14. Prominent?

Maybe he thinks "Prominent" means Black...

[ret5hd]

2. "Thomas The Trust-Buster"???

Yeaaaahhhh...I’m holding my breath.

[Ilsa]

3. Maybe if Trump wasn't trying to overturn fair elections and

incite riots, an insurrection, and bigotry, those firms wouldn't need to feel compelled to gag him to protect their product and our democracy. D'uh.

[Effete Snob]

4. "Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties"

That's just not true.

There are more avenues for speech than there have ever been.

If you wanted to say something that was accessible to millions of people in, say, 1960, you would have to have had a lot of money, or a friend at one of relatively few broadcasting or publishing companies.

Freedom of the press had only ever extended to someone who owned a press. Publishing technology is much more accessible now.

[Claire Oh Nette]

15. More social media apps than ever

More voices out there shouting into the abyss all the time.

Takes a special kind of incendiary speech to be permanently banned from Twitter and FB. Private business can set terms of service. Isn't that the whole GOP mantra--invisible hand and all that?

Thomas seems not to notice that all these other voices aren't getting banned, because they didn't lead an insurrection against their own government. THat's the thing about the first amendment--the government can't punish those who speak out against it. The Government has a press office and doesn't really need twitter. Ex government officials who are now private citizens do not get special treament. If anything, Twitter and FB are well within their rights. Those platforms are entirely voluntary. No one has a right to them.

Now, if we could get the major new media to IGNORE what that delusional private citizen lies about every day, that's be great.

[live love laugh]

6. What about Faux and talk radio? Address them ALL.

[PortTack]

9. That would be a very good balance

[CrispyQ]

7. more--

snip...

Thomas’ opinion amounts to an invitation to Congress to declare Twitter, Facebook and similar companies “common carriers,” essentially requiring them to host all customers regardless of their views. At the moment, the companies have sweeping authority to take down any post and to suspend or terminate any account.

So lies are okay? Hate speech is okay? Incendiary remarks are okay? Anyone will be allowed to pollute the public sphere with their hate & lies?

[Hortensis]

8. Thomas and company act as the high court branch of the Republican Party.

If this was helping them, he wouldn't be complaining, he'd be looking for ways to increase it.

Hope he continues to find a great deal to complain about.

[samsingh]

10. justice and thomas don't belong together

maybe
traitor and thomas
moron and thomas

[Johonny]

11. He gave corporations unlimited power thinking he was their master

only to discover, they don't give a shit about him... awe.

[gratuitous]

12. What's that, Justice Slappy?

You're talking about "today's digital platforms" and not the holy original intent of the thrice-blessed founding fathers? Are you implying that the text of the Constitution needs to be adapted and shaped to new developments in society and that the original words as written may not be equal in all cases and circumstances to the way the nation functions today?

Heretics are not received kindly by the True Believers.

[Goodheart]

16. It's a ludicrous objection, to be sure.

The problem of highly conspicuous and concentrated speech was far worse when there were only three major television networks. And, subsequent to that, after a bit of media expansion, did that jackass ever complain about Fox's place in national public discourse?