Clarence Thomas sounds alarm over Big Tech power - WORLD

"It alters absolutely nothing that these platforms are not the sole methods for distributing speech or details. This Is Cool could select to avoid the toll bridge or train and rather swim the Charles River or trek the Oregon Trail," Thomas composed. "However in assessing whether a company exercises significant market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are equivalent.

A number of legal specialists told NPR that this reading of typical carrier law represents a fringe view popular among partisan conservatives however not shared by federal regulative agencies and the Supreme Court's own precedents. No other justice signed up with Thomas' concurrence. The remarks from Thomas are not the very first time he has written that Huge Tech must be reined in.

Harvard Law School's Evelyn Douek argued that Twitter's booting of Trump might simply be the action that leads to a stripping of social media platforms' legal defenses. "I have actually said this consistently, but it was extremely short-sighted of liberals to unquestioningly celebrate the unaccountable deplatforming of Trump (not to discuss everyone else swept up) as a workout of personal power and deliver the point that regulation may actually be useful," she tweeted.

"I'm not sure what to make of how much support Justice Thomas's reading of 230 has amongst the other eight Justices, particularly since they have actually denied [certiorari] in a couple of high-profile 230 cases recently," tweeted lawyer Jeff Kosseff, referring to the Supreme Court's recent choices not to accept some Area 230 cases.

In an interview, Kosseff stated attorneys readying cases and state legislatures may be emboldened by Thomas' remarks. "It is an invitation for plaintiffs' legal representatives to bring cases challenging Section 230," he said. "And I would not be amazed if we would begin seeing more states passing laws that try to control content small amounts." Kosseff stated any legal analysis of Section 230 that overlooks a long history of cases that have supported platforms' own First Amendment right of policing unpleasant material would have a hard time enduring judicial scrutiny.