Justice Thomas applauded for suggesting regulation of 'Big Tech'

Wednesday, April 7, 2021
Steve Jordahl (OneNewsNow.com)

Justice Clarence Thomas (no robe)Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has provided a roadmap for those who want to see "Big Tech" reined in through the courts – and a media expert says it's a timely opinion from the conservative justice.

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a First Amendment challenge to President Trump after he blocked a few users from his Twitter account when he was president. They argued he was infringing on their free speech. But the high court decided since he's no longer president, the case is moot.

Justice Thomas (pictured) agreed with the rest of the court, but used the opinion to offer his ideas on the best way to corral massive tech companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter that are doing the same thing – censoring free speech.

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

He continued: "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 down listing a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results."


Dan Gainor of MRC TechWatch says it's a significant opinion. "Justice Thomas is very clearly raising the question 'When does the Supreme Court rein in Big Tech?' – and that's a shot across the bow," he tells One News Now.

Thomas writes that the big tech companies are the greatest threat to free speech, and that the court cannot put off weighing in on the issue much longer. Gainor says the problem has reached critical mass during the pandemic.

"Almost everything we do following a year-plus of COVID is done online – and we're being restricted more than ever," the MRC spokesman notes, "and [the tech companies are] trying desperately to get global regulation of speech."

According to Gainor, it's no longer just an issue of free speech. He points out that almost every interaction individuals have is online – going to church, running a business, interacting with government … and Big Tech, he argues, is actively working against fundamental freedoms by setting up rules and regulations that conflict with free speech, a free press, and/or freedom of religion.

Comments will be temporarily unavailable. Thank you for your patience as we restore this service!

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details




Neither Pres. Biden nor VP Harris is publicly acknowledging the worsening border crisis because:





Police: Minnesota officer meant to draw Taser, not handgun
  Police report multiple victims in Tennessee school shooting
Judge refuses to sequester jury in George Floyd case
  DeSantis attacks YouTube for yanking his pandemic video
US colleges divided over requiring student vaccinations
Iran blames Israel for sabotage at Natanz nuclear site


A nation primed to see racism in everything will think only about race
Forced masking is behavioral science, not medical, and they’ve been playing us the whole time
Fixing racism by being racist?
The liberal race to vaccinate
CA teacher caught berating students in leaked Zoom over push for in-person learning, 'Come at me'


Cartoon of the Day
Biology 101 failure at CNN also a standard left-wing mantra

pregnancy ultrasoundCNN is being mocked for a news story that was written to defend transgender people, and to criticize their critics, but it did so by turning basic biology on its head and ignoring the evidence found in a standard ultrasound.