Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has confirmed that the door is open for the Supreme Court to take on the power of Big Tech companies that have spent the last couple of years suppressing speech, The Washington Times reported.
On Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed a lower court ruling that former President Donald Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking Twitter critics. The lower court ruling found that the president’s Twitter counted as an official source of government information and, as such, cannot be hidden from the public.
The case was dismissed as Trump is no longer in the White House, and he has been permanently banned from Twitter. Regardless, Thomas made a point of saying that other similar cases are taking the court down the road that will end with Big Tech companies being held accountable.
Conservatives have been clamoring for the court to tackle the abuse of power that Big Tech has been utilizing for years. Now it seems that the Supreme Court is close to addressing the issue.
Courts catching up with tech companies
“As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms,” Thomas wrote in a concurrence in the ruling. “The extent to which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions.”
Big Tech companies have created important public spaces where information is spread but want to retain the power to control the speech that occurs there. Twitter and Google may soon be no longer able to hide behind their status as a corporation to escape the reach of the court.
Thomas continued saying, “It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means for distributing speech or information. A person always could choose to avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail. But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable. For many of today’s digital platforms, nothing is.”
Alternatives to Big Tech have either failed or been actively suppressed by Big Tech. Parler was created as an alternative for Twitter but was quickly de-platformed by Google because Parler refused to abide by Google’s content moderation standards.
It is undeniable that Big Tech has a monopoly on the flow of information. Thomas mentioned that the court’s view must evolve on this issue, saying, “applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely straightforward.”
Bad news for Democrats
The domination of social media by leftist corporations has been a major boon for Democrats who have been able to count on Twitter, Google, and Facebook to be propaganda machines for the party and leftist ideology.
If their power to restrict and hide conservative speech is taken away by the Supreme Court, it would be a return to worse times for the Democratic Party as the use of social media and activism by conservatives to circumvent the mainstream media was a key part of Trump’s 2016 presidential victory.
Trump’s very public banning from Twitter after he left the White House was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Thomas likely isn’t the only Supreme Court Justice who believes that social media platforms are more accurately described as a public utility.