On Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court soon will have to put an end to big tech tyranny. He cited the “glaring” problem of social media platforms like Facebook and Google wielding unlimited power to censor users whose views they don’t like. These tech giants, he argued, ought to be regulated like “common carriers,” which are legally required to serve all customers. AT&T can’t refuse to open a phone account for you or limit your conversations. Amtrak cannot pick and choose who rides its trains.
Thomas’s opinion offers hope at a time when Democrats controlling Congress are demanding tech giants do more censoring, not less. On March 25, Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered tech CEOs clamp down on “disinformation” and silence views that “undermine social justice movements.” Spoken like true totalitarians.
Thomas’ groundbreaking announcement was made in the context of a case involving Donald Trump. As president, he blocked critics from commenting on his tweets or retweeting them. Critics sued, claiming the president’s Twitter account is a public forum. The high court ruled the case is now moot because Trump is out of office. Thomas concurred, and agreed with a lower court ruling that Trump violated his critics’ First Amendment right to be heard.
But Thomas said “the more glaring concern” is not what Trump did to a few critics. It’s the power of tech giants to censor or ban users entirely, even a president. Thomas expressed astonishment that Facebook and Google are permitted to remove an account “at any time for any or no reason.” He wrote “one person controls Facebook … and just two control Google.” They decide what viewpoints billions of people can express or hear.
That power, said Thomas, must be reined in when a future controversy reaches the high court.
Big tech’s defenders argue that because they’re private companies, they’re free to censor. The First Amendment was written to prohibit only government from silencing viewpoints. But Thomas says it’s past time for the Court to get tech savvy. These companies are more like common carriers or public utilities than private companies. They must be open to all the public.
Thomas also likened them to “public accommodations” like hotels and baseball stadiums, which are legally required to serve everyone and not discriminate.
Thomas doesn’t see big tech tyranny being solved by competition, as newer companies emerge. He points to the “substantial barriers to entry.” The fate of Parler proves the point. When Parler offered a censorship-free platform, big tech united to crush it.
Some hailed Thomas’s opinion as “an invitation to Congress to declare Twitter, Facebook, and similar companies common carriers.” But the truth is that Democrats have no interest in the free exchange of ideas. They’d rather deputize Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to censor competitors.
And don’t count on President Biden. A staggering 14 of his picks to serve during the transition or in his new government are Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Amazon recruits, according to a Daily Caller tally.
Biden probably owes his presidency, in part, to big tech. When the New York Post published a story documenting a Chinese company’s dealings with the Biden family, including candidate Joe Biden, Silicon Valley tagged it as “disinformation.” Facebook buried it, and Twitter locked the Post’s account entirely. In the weeks before the election, voters were denied information that could have influenced their choice.
Now, with Democrats in power, there’s no chance lawmakers will classify tech companies as common carriers. But Thomas says the Court can apply that reasoning any way, without waiting for Congress.
Until then, the public will hear only what the Silicon Valley wants. Last week, Lara Trump posted an interview with the former president on Facebook. Immediately, Facebook took it down, explaining, “further content posted in the voice of Donald Trump will be removed.”
Only the high court will restore uncensored political discourse, an American ideal. Thomas’s opinion illuminates the way.
Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York and author of “The Next Pandemic,” available at Amazon.com. Contact her at [email protected] or on Twitter @Betsy_McCaughey. To find out more about Betsy McCaughey and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
If we had a Trust-Busting President in place who busted the Trusts instead of Trusting the Busters we would be half the way home to America again. When you promote leaders based on clarity of thought and personal integrity you get guys like Thomas. Who cares what color his skin is? In Biden’s case of social failures, personal enrichment schemes, and confusion of thought, his skin color certainly has nothing to do with it.
IF anything, we shouldn’t just treat them like common carriers, but use the FULL WEIGHT of the FCC and flat out SHUT THEM the hell down.
THEN send their heads to prison.
Great News, this censorship of free speech should not be legal or tolerated. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Of course we know that the dishonorable, dishonest Socialist Democrat Party will whine and protest over their losing complete control of the big techs tyranny. 👿
The problem is, if this case gets to SCOTUS, who knows what they will do? It is rare when the Judiciary can be trusted, right John Leftist Roberts?
I agree. So far, Kavenaugh and Gorsuch have both proven to have been UNWORTHY OF trump’s (and our) trust.
It seems they keep refusing to even hear anything worth a damn…. I wonder what employers would do if their employees refuse an assignment!
Which makes me FEARFUL, that if any of these gun law cases finally hit the scotus, they;ll JUST REFUSE to do a damn thing about them… Effectively ABDICATING the 2nd amendment.
The argument that social platforms are private business and they can censor free speech constitutes a “slippery slope.”
Yes, they are privately owned, however, they use public utilities, ie, the internet.
That said, what’s to stop commies from infiltrating Conservative platforms and suing them for the same reason?
Given the above statements, I’m more for treating Foolsbook, Tw@tter, Amazon, et al, as monopolies instead.
BUT hold on, those bakeries, florists etc, ARE ALSO PRIVATE companies, and they are getting sued into obscurity, for “being unwilling to serve/make a cake for LGBTQ or transitioning etc.. So either ALL private companies can decide who they serve or not. OR NO Company can..
That’s comparing apples to oranges.
I’m talking about what’s going on with what can be described as public forums, even though they’re privately owned.
The “big boys” so to speak, have waaaay too much power over speech and opinions plus being able to shut down the competition like what they did to Parler, hence the “monopoly” argument.
All I did above was to point out the flipside of the whole danged thing.
As for bakeries, florists, etc, a real court would have thrown out the plaintiff’s case right off the bat due to the Freedom of Religion clause in the 1st. We’re dealing with kangaroo courts that wipe their behinds with the Constitution every day.
IIRC, it seems to me that the bakery in question was willing to sell our “loving” couple a more generic cake, but was not willing to decorate it gayly…the “couple” would have to do that themselves, and that’s what got their little panties in a knot.
ANd that’s the thing. WE no longer HAVE real courts (so it seems).. ERGO BY the standards THOSE COURTS we do have, put down, no business that’s private, should be able to deny service to anyone, period. BASED ON THE PRECEDENCE they already set…
Not if Pelosi has anything to say about it she controls the courts now BOW DOWN YOU SUPREME COURT PEOPLE ! your master will decide what you do and do not do .