Justice Clarence Thomas Says Social Media Companies Do Not Have the Right to Ban Protected Speech

originally posted by: SuperStudChuck
I’m not super smart on this topic, but I don’t see why internet communication is not the same as phone communication. I can say what I want. If the company disagrees, it doesn’t matter, nor do they have liability for my conversation. But I am legally liable for anything illegal I do while in that conversation. This is how all interpersonal communication should be.

The job of the social media provider should be to make sure anyone who does not wish to see or join in the conversation has the ability to “hang up” (ignore, unfriend, leave the conversation, block people, etc.).

Again, I apologize if my legal understanding is not correct— just speaking from my general knowledge of how a phone conversation has worked (and believe me, there have been many Twitter-bannable conversations that the phone company never intervened) and applying it to all forms of communication.

Do you know what a T&C clause is here on ATS? Social media sites have the same thing. They pay the bills, they make the rules.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: SuperStudChuck
I’m not super smart on this topic, but I don’t see why internet communication is not the same as phone communication. I can say what I want. If the company disagrees, it doesn’t matter, nor do they have liability for my conversation. But I am legally liable for anything illegal I do while in that conversation. This is how all interpersonal communication should be.

The job of the social media provider should be to make sure anyone who does not wish to see or join in the conversation has the ability to “hang up” (ignore, unfriend, leave the conversation, block people, etc.).

Again, I apologize if my legal understanding is not correct— just speaking from my general knowledge of how a phone conversation has worked (and believe me, there have been many Twitter-bannable conversations that the phone company never intervened) and applying it to all forms of communication.

Do you know what a T&C clause is here on ATS? Social media sites have the same thing. They pay the bills, they make the rules.

I’m not saying what is— I’m saying what I think it could be and what is the actual difference between digital conversation and a vocal conversation.

Clarence Thomas is one of the last bastions of hope standing in the breach between right and left. I'm a constitutionalist because of people like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Their originalist take on our constitution in my opinion is spot on, contrary to the new age progressive think of a "changing" constitution.

I wonder if he would ever consider running for president....

Imagine that? The republicans running a black man as the 2nd black president in United States History. What a slap in the face of the so-called 'progressive left' democrats

originally posted by: Atsbhct

originally posted by: carewemust
Will this be good or bad for the mega platform being constructed by the Trump family?

How did no one reply to this.

I would bet that's directly related somehow.

Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to consider the big 21 State + Trump Election challenge that was spearheaded by Texas.

But Chief Justice John "Azzhole" Roberts decided to throw the entire thing out in the dumpster, due to a form not being completed properly.

originally posted by: Ohanka
Looks like Justice Thomas is going to suddenly start suffering from deep depression leading to eventual suicide like all people who dare to impede the plans of the international ruling cartel.

And then he'll commit suicide by shooting himself in the head.

Twice.

originally posted by: carewemust
Will this be good or bad for the mega platform being constructed by the Trump family?

It will make little difference. I suspect that Trump's platform simply won't have Liberal posters, they hate debate and so will boycott.

a reply to: SuperStudChuck

We are in this mess because logical discourse has been Sold to the law.

There is no more common thought as you’ve just done.

I had to explain to an attorney how the mandates in Michigan are unconstitutional based on a similar example. She agreed with me after and It turned out it was exactly how they ruled.

I’m not a lawyer.

Good remove 230 and let the freemarket do what it does and adjust itself, FB and Twitter and the others that were responsible for the things that they did, will see MASSIVE civil lawsuits, and be forced to deal a more even hand.

The ONLY way to stop these sort of things is to hit them in the pocketbook.

a reply to: olaru12

Personally, I hope they are regulated right out of business. This world would be a much better place without them.

Has anyone even dug into this opinion's ramifications? It carries no weight as it was issued unilaterally in a suit dismissed by the Supreme Court. Someone would have to file a suit, work it up through the courts and then use Thomas' opinion in front of the entire Court hoping to get a majority decision.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Has anyone even dug into this opinion's ramifications? It carries no weight as it was issued unilaterally in a suit dismissed by the Supreme Court. Someone would have to file a suit, work it up through the courts and then use Thomas' opinion in front of the entire Court hoping to get a majority decision.

It's about time you showed up.


I'd say there are no ramifications at the moment. This was posted as information only, as Thomas's own opinion on the matter. He seems to think at some point the courts will have to tackle this. Hopefully, he's not the only one on the SCOTUS who thinks this way if and when that case happens.

originally posted by: Klassified
Hopefully, he's not the only one on the SCOTUS who thinks this way if and when that case happens.

Uh, he is, since it was a sole dissenting opinion, he had no concurrences.

a reply to: marg6043

The supreme court judges purpose is to protect our nations laws...

Someone needs to tell Justice Roberts that. I'm not so sure he knows or cares.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Klassified
Hopefully, he's not the only one on the SCOTUS who thinks this way if and when that case happens.

Uh, he is, since it was a sole dissenting opinion, he had no concurrences.

That's why I said if and when a case like that happens. Maybe at that point, he won't be the only one. I won't hold my breath though.

originally posted by: Klassified
That's why I said if and when a case like that happens. Maybe at that point, he won't be the only one. I won't hold my breath though.

It's highly doubtful, if any of the Justices felt remotely like Thomas they would have concurred. He has a history of authoring sole opinions like this and people not familiar with how the Court functions take them as some sort of enforceable edict as evidenced by a preponderance of replies in this thread.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Klassified
That's why I said if and when a case like that happens. Maybe at that point, he won't be the only one. I won't hold my breath though.

It's highly doubtful, if any of the Justices felt remotely like Thomas they would have concurred. He has a history of authoring sole opinions like this and people not familiar with how the Court functions take them as some sort of enforceable edict as evidenced by a preponderance of replies in this thread.

Good points all. Do you think he's wrong in full or part? I questioned in the OP if what he says could be a slippery slope even though I think something needs to be done. I'm just leery of government intervention in a matter like this.

a reply to: Klassified

I'm a laissez faire capitalist, I think that would make my stance easy to deduce. But if it isn't I don't think the government should be dictating what is or is not permissible to restrict in regards their platform.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Normally that would be true, but sometimes you surprise me.

originally posted by: Klassified
Normally that would be true, but sometimes you surprise me.

There's a saying in Italian, "Prima di parlare, accendi il cervello".

Sometimes I do that.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: olaru12

Personally, I hope they are regulated right out of business. This world would be a much better place without them.

You can exercise your free will and not use social media, right.

Why do you want to censor the right of others to use social media if they so choose. Does the first Amendment ring a bell?

And destroy a venue where people can communicate.

How would you feel if someone wanted to regulate AM talk radio? Like this democrat administration....I despise that twink Brian Kilmeade but he has every right to express his opinion.

Keep Government out of Private enterprise!!