This is clickbait even for Poso. I read the opinion. Not only does it not find what he says here, but Thomas EXPLICITLY says that issue isn't at stake in the case they are considering.
The Thomas concurrence (i.e. not the actual controlling opinion) is basically walking through all the ways legislatures COULD control social media platforms as common carriers or public accommodations. Its intended to guide conservative lawmakers into drafting laws that would actually regulate them. He does not say companies have no first amendment rights or that they can't regulate speech. He also does not say 230 is unconstitutional. All he says is that it's odd that social media has been given a gift of immunity under Section 230, but hasn't also been given the heightened responsibilities that companies who normally get those types of immunity get (i.e. common carriers).
This is clickbait even for Poso. I read the opinion. Not only does it not find what he says here, but Thomas EXPLICITLY says that issue isn't at stake in the case they are considering.
The Thomas concurrence (i.e. not the actual controlling opinion) is basically walking through all the ways legislatures COULD control social media platforms as common carriers or public accommodations. Its intended to guide conservative lawmakers into drafting laws that would actually regulate them. He does not say companies have no first amendment rights or that they can't regulate speech. He also does not say 230 is unconstitutional. All he says is that it's odd that social media has been given a gift of immunity under Section 230, but hasn't also been given the heightened responsibilities that companies who normally get those types of immunity get (i.e. common carriers).
Line to opinion or case name?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101320zor_8m58.pdf