Notes

Clarence Thomas issues road map on how to stop big tech

<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<img class="featurable" style="max-height:300px;max-width:400px;" itemprop="image" src="https://i.insider.com/525d49e36bb3f7925c1e39a8?width=1000&amp;format=jpeg&amp;auto=webp" alt="Fact check: Post misrepresents Justice Thomas on Section 230"><span style="display:none" itemprop="caption">How Clarence Thomas Grew to Hate Affirmative Action</span>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<h1 style="clear:both" id="content-section-0">An Unbiased View of Clarence Thomas asks central questions on tech censorship<br></h1>
<br>
<p class="p__0">"It changes absolutely nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always might pick to prevent the toll bridge or train and rather swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Path," Thomas wrote. "However in assessing whether a business works out considerable market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are similar.</p>
<br>
<p class="p__1">Numerous legal professionals told NPR that this reading of common provider law represents a fringe view popular amongst partisan conservatives but not shared by federal regulatory firms and the Supreme Court's own precedents. No other justice joined Thomas' concurrence. The remarks from Thomas are not the very first time he has actually written that Big Tech should be controlled.</p>
<br>
<div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ImageObject">
<img class=" <a href=" https: joycedstanley.wearelegalshield.com blog can-unpopular-speech-get-censored-social-networks-justice-thomas-chimes-your-legal-rights">Official Info Here ="max-height:300px;max-width:400px;" itemprop="image" src="https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/269/3ad/1a337290978ff855a748e0ef937185c95c-16-clarence-thomas-lede.rsocial.w1200.jpg" alt="Thomas Second Hearing Day 1, Part 4 - C-SPAN.org"/&gt;<span style="display:none" itemprop="caption">SCOTUS Intervenes! Clarence Thomas WRECKS Big Tech in Concurring Opinion - Newsbusters</span>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<p class="p__2">Harvard Law School's Evelyn Douek argued that Twitter's booting of Trump may simply be the action that results in a stripping of social networks platforms' legal defenses. "I have actually stated this consistently, however it was extremely short-sighted of liberals to unquestioningly commemorate the unaccountable deplatforming of Trump (not to mention everybody else swept up) as an exercise of personal power and cede the point that regulation may actually be beneficial," she tweeted.</p>
<br>
<h1 style="clear:both" id="content-section-1">The Justice Thomas's Misguided Concurrence on Platform Statements<br></h1>
<br>
<p class="p__3">"I'm not exactly sure what to make from how much support Justice Thomas's reading of 230 has among the other 8 Justices, particularly because they have actually rejected [certiorari] in a couple of prominent 230 cases just recently," tweeted legal representative Jeff Kosseff, referring to the Supreme Court's recent decisions not to accept some Section 230 cases.</p>
<br>
<img width="367" src="https://www.publishedreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Clarence-Thomas-279x220.jpg">
<br>
<p class="p__4">In an interview, Kosseff stated attorneys readying cases and state legislatures may be emboldened by Thomas' remarks. "It is an invite for plaintiffs' attorneys to bring cases challenging Area 230," he stated. "And I would not be shocked if we would begin seeing more states passing laws that try to control content moderation." Kosseff said any legal analysis of Area 230 that neglects a long history of cases that have promoted platforms' own First Amendment right of policing uncomfortable material would have a tough time enduring judicial examination.</p>
<br>

Website: