Justice Thomas Goes to War with Facebook: Time to Sweep Away Big Tech Immunity


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is calling for a review of Big Tech’s legal protections.

Thomas released a statement on Monday after the Supreme Court declined to take up a lawsuit from a woman who had been sexually trafficked using Facebook.

Thomas concurred with the court’s decision not to review the case but said the Supreme Court should consider a case pertaining to Section 230 protections.

CNBC Analyst Arrested on Federal Charges After Disappearing and Being Declared a Fugitive

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides social media platforms with immunity from civil or criminal liability for user-generated content.

“It is hard to see why the protections [Section 230] grants publishers against being held strictly liable for third parties’ content should protect Facebook from liability for its own ‘acts and omissions,'” Thomas argued in the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Jane Doe v. Facebook.

“I … concur in the Court’s denial of certiorari. We should, however, address the proper scope of immunity under [Section 230] in an appropriate case.”

Amid partisan “fact-checks” and the pervasive censorship of conservatives on the part of Big Tech companies, some have questioned Section 230.

The law has formed the basis for an internet in which a small handful of tech giants control the majority of online speech.

Big Tech’s critics have also pointed to Section 230 as the basis for Silicon Valley giants creating uncontested monopolies. Google, for example, grabs 85 percent of all internet searches.

The removal of Section 230 protections could fundamentally change the internet as we know it, although it’s unclear if this would lead to more free speech or less.

Some have proposed regulating Big Tech giants as public utilities, providing the same right to access that the average American has to electric and other utility companies.

In some of his previous statements, Thomas has shown himself willing to challenge the legal basis of Section 230.

Clarence Thomas Unexpectedly Absent for Supreme Court Oral Arguments

He has compared Big Tech giants to companies regulated as “common carriers.”

It’s unclear how the conservative court would rule in potential litigation redefining the scope of Section 230 protections.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

, , , , , , ,