SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas Suggests Big Tech Platforms are ‘Common Carriers’ Subject to Congressional Action to Protect Free Speech

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurrence in which he argued that Big Tech platforms are “common carriers” subject to regulation in order to defend free speech.

“If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude. Historically, at least two legal doctrines limited a company’s right to exclude,” Thomas wrote.

“First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a general requirement to serve all comers,” he added.

Thomas wrote these words while championing the decision made in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ. This overturned a lower-court ruling that President Trump had violated the 1st Amendment by blocking people on his Twitter account. Thomas made it clear that it is the tech giants, not individual actors participating on the platform, who are the real threat to free speech.

“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties,” Thomas wrote.

“We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms,” he added. 

Even though her case was dismissed by SCOTUS on the same day, Thomas is echoing many of the legal arguments made by banished journalist Laura Loomer’s legal counsel in her case against Big Tech.

Big League Politics has reported on how Loomer has performed much of the legal legwork to build the case against tech monopolies:

Banished journalist and Congressional candidate Laura Loomer intends to take her landmark free speech lawsuit against the Silicon Valley monoliths all the way to the Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel ruled that Big Tech can steamroll the rights of Loomer and other individuals deemed guilty of wrong-think.

“Freedom Watch argues that we should infer an agreement primarily from the Platforms’ parallel behavior, as each company purportedly refused to provide certain services to Freedom Watch. But, as the district court explained, parallel conduct alone cannot support a claim under the Sherman Act,” the three-judge panel decided.

“In general, the First Amendment ‘prohibits only governmental abridgment of speech,’” the judges explained in their ruling, referencing the Manhattan Community Access Corp. vs. Halleck case.

Despite the fact that Big Tech entities receive special privileges from the federal government in order to operate, they were deemed non-state actors in this court ruling. They can discriminate, act as Big Brother, impose Orwellian sanctions, and even potentially influence elections with their monopoly power, according to the inexplicable court ruling.

Loomer believes that the decision is bogus and motivated by partisan politics. She and her legal counsel intend to take the case all the way up to the Supreme Court, hoping that the nation’s highest court will defend freedom of speech in America.

Loomer reported being encouraged by Thomas’ remarks and the momentum that is building around the mandate to reign in Big Tech.

“My attorney Larry Klayman and I are very appreciative and heartened that Justice Clarence Thomas referred to our case in his concurring opinion today concerning Big Tech censorship and discrimination,” she told Big League Politics.

“Given that the Supreme Court rescheduled the review of our petition for writ of certiorari on five occasions, it was clear that Our arguments were being seriously considered, and today’s statement by Justice Thomas is proof. Now is the time for all concerned Americans to push for antitrust laws, anti-discrimination laws, and other law enforcement measures against the leftist controlled Big Tech giants in order to ensure that First Amendment freedoms, so necessary for a truly representative republic like the United States of America, can be restored,” she added.

“As I helped do with AT&T, when I was a young lawyer in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Reagan administration, now is the time to break up the monopoly of Big Tech and allow competition to flourish as it has in the telecommunications industry,” said Loomer’s attorney Larry Klayman, who founded Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch.

The time to act against Big Tech is now, or otherwise the Orwellian Nightmare they are implementing may be irreversible.

Share: