Clarence Thomas Shows the Path Forward on Big Tech
Thomas implied that Section 230 immunity for Big Tech firms may itself be constitutionally problematic and in conflict with the First Amendment.
By Josh Hammer
April 8, 2021
A realignment, as many have observed, is now unfolding in American politics. The Republican Party and its conservatism is now the home for the “Somewheres,” to borrow the term from David Goodhart’s 2017 book, The Road to Somewhere, which refers to the more traditionalist, hardscrabble patriots of the American heartland. The Democratic Party and its increasingly hard-left progressivism, by contrast, is the home for the “Anywheres”—those highly educated, mobile, “woke” elites comprising the bicoastal ruling class.
The Big Tech issue is the tip of the spear of the realignment. As has been made painfully obvious the last few years, with last October’s collusive Big Tech assault on the New York Post for its election-season reporting on Hunter Biden’s overseas travails serving as an eye-opening pinnacle, Big Tech is now the ruling class’s catspaw. These modern-day robber barons are willing and able to lend their censorious assistance to the ruling class’s ruthless entrenchment of its ideological and political hegemony. Big Tech, in short, is the leading private-sector appendage with which the Anywheres cow into submission and subjugate the Somewheres.
This emergent reality has caused no shortage of heart palpitations among some of the more “liberal” elements of the American conservative firmament. Conservatives, many were taught, stand for unadulterated laissez-faire and a staunch commitment to deregulating corporate America. What to do, then, when those unshackled big corporations turn around and come after us?
The answer, for many, has been to carefully reassess what exactly it is we stand for as conservatives—especially as it pertains to unaccountable, concentrated corporate titans who control the 21st-century equivalents of the old public square. To wit, there is nothing particularly “conservative” about a zealous, dogmatic refusal to countenance state actions that might better channel the content curation and moderation decisions of a behemoth such as Amazon—which has at least an 80 percent market share in digital books—toward the common good of the American polity. Ditto Google, which has a nearly 90 percent market share in online search.
But the historical bromance between the GOP and chamber of commerce-style corporatism has been an obstinate hindrance to reform. Big Tech-skeptical, pro-realignment conservatives have all too often had their legal and policy arguments on such issues as antitrust enforcement and Section 230 reform thrown back in their faces by doctrinaire, limited-government enthusiasts who insist that True Conservatism is synonymous with hands-off private-sector fundamentalism. “Build your own Google!” the corporatists and libertarians have scowled.
On Monday, the most important conservative lawyer in the nation, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, came out swinging on the side of the reformers.
In his concurrence in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, Thomas opined: “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.”
Later, after a discussion of the centuries-long history of “common carrier” regulation—in modern times, most often applied to transportation networks like rail and communications networks like telephony—and places of “public accommodation,” Thomas wrote: “There is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated in this manner.”
Seemingly speaking directly to regulators and legislators at both the federal and state level, Thomas also added, “If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform’s right to exclude.” Seldom is a Supreme Court justice clearer and more forthright than that. Finally, in a footnote toward the end of his concurrence, Thomas implied that Section 230 immunity may itself be constitutionally problematic and in conflict with the First Amendment.
With the imprimatur of America’s greatest living conservative—who happens to be one of the greatest Supreme Court justices ever—the path forward for the Big Tech-skeptical right is clear. We can and must use all tools necessary in our policy and legal arsenal to rein in the Big Tech oligarchs before it is too late. Section 230 reform and antitrust enforcement against the most egregious offenders of concentrated power, such as Google and Amazon, are fine places to begin.
But as Thomas urges, and as many of us have argued at least since the New York Post hullabaloo last October, we should think even bigger than that. It’s time to get serious about applying “common carrier” regulatory frameworks and “public accommodation” Civil Rights Act statutory frameworks, and to reclaim our self-governing democracy from the Silicon Valley technocracy before it is too late.
I think you mean 8chan / 8kun. 4chan does censor afaik. That said, I trust 8kun less now that Ron is gone, and he is working on a new project he’s been keeping pretty quiet about. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on the Mike Lindell’s Frank team or even Trump’s new platform team.
say something about jesus and prophet mohammad or the jews
Okay. The eyewitness and testimonial evidence from both Christian and non-Christian contemporaries combined with early and wide spread under persecution, and preserved chain of custody evidence all support the conclusion that Jesus is The Lord our God. Mohammad by his own “holy” scriptures, the Quran and ahadith, is revealed to be not a prophet, but a lying pedophile warlord slaver rapist adulterer thief murderer.
During his “prophetic” ministry, Muhammad was deserted by his scribe, Ibn Abi Sarh. At issue was the charge that Muhammad allowed Abi Sarh to make changes to the Quran causing him to become disillusioned about how easily the supposed eternal word of Allah could be changed. These events could obviously cause serious damage to Muhammad’s reputation. As a means of damage control Allah send down another one of his many “convenient revelations:
”And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name. We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly them cut off the artery of his heart (aorta)” -Quran 69:44-46
So the Quran here makes a rather stark claim: If Muhammad dies through the cutting of his aorta, he is a false prophet. So how did Muhammad die according to the most venerable Islamic traditions? The widely accepted details of Muhammad’s death are very well known. He was given poisoned meat by a Jewish lady as revenge for his actions against her people at the Battle of Khaibar. Interestingly, she placed the poison in the meat as a test of his prophethood, stating:
“if he was a prophet he will be informed of what I have done.” -Ibn Ishaq p. 516
Elsewhere she is shown to have gifted him a meal of roasted goat on which she had poisoned his favorite part to eat, the foreleg:
“You have killed my father, my uncle, and my husband, so I said to myself if you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you. -Ibm Sa’d, Vol. 2, pp 251-252
What is even more interesting, in the context of Quran 69:44-46, is that there are several strong traditions that state that Muhammad died through the cutting of his aorta:
“The prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” -Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713;
and:
“He then said about the pain of which he died: I continued to feel pain from the morsel which I had eaten at Khaibar. This is the time when it has cut off my aorta.” -Sunan Abu Dawud 4498.
He himself spoke in Quran 69:44-46 the fate of a false prophet, then went on tho experience exactly that himself! Someone who affirms his own status as a false prophet has to be the most obvious false prophet in history!
Please refrain from referring to that scumbag who has ruined so many lives and souls as “the Prophet.” He was a self-interested swindler whose chief focus in life was attaining as much sex, money, and power as he could. As you read above, he was also dumb. After all, he died after accepting a poisoned meal from a Jewish woman whose husband he had recently murdered by torture and beheading. Would you eat a free meal from a woman whose husband you had just murdered? Below are some other related passages about his death.
Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. -Sahih Bukhari 3:47:786
Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." -Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713
The reason behind her action was the killing of her people and family by Muhammad.
The apostle of Allah sent for Zaynab and said to her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "You have done to my people what you have done. You have killed my father, my uncle and my husband, so I said to myself, "If you are a prophet, the foreleg will inform you; and others have said, "If you are a king we will get rid of you." -Ibn Sa'd p. 252
Don't forget, if anyone disagrees with him, like Jack, or Spez, or the Borg, IMMEDIATELY label them racist, just like they did us when we disagreed with Obama.
They don't care. You know it damn well that they never live up to their own standards, and most of their accusations against you are confessions about themselves.
I'm more interested in showing more neutral observers around them what racist, bigoted, ignorant pieces of shit those liberals already area. I don't really give a shit if the idiots somehow "become more liberal" because we're calling out their bigotries.
Justice Thomas and Justice Alito where the only 2 to vote to hear Texas's case, as they (correctly) said that the Supreme Court can not refuse to hear an Original Jurisdiction case.
This man will go down in history as one of the great, courageous justices.
He actually considers situations and their ramifications rather than doing the popular thing.
There are very few people in the legal environment that do the right thing--mostly, they make the legal profession an ignoble profession. A big departure from the original intent of the American justice system.
The same people that are responsible for tearing down America are the ones that have tainted and corrupted the justice system. They have turned law and order on its head.
They were well written words and reached other people. Memes for idiots and well thought out articles for the smart idiots. We need to use the same "death by a thousand cuts" method the communists have been using for years.
Clarence Thomas is a warrior for freedom. But his hands are tied by the other Justices of the cowardly Supreme Court. Big Tech needs to be broken up much like AT&T was years ago. “Baby Google” has a nice ring to it.
Seemingly speaking directly to regulators and legislators at both the federal and state level, Thomas also added, “If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform’s right to exclude.” Seldom is a Supreme Court justice clearer and more forthright than that. Finally, in a footnote toward the end of his concurrence, Thomas implied that Section 230 immunity may itself be constitutionally problematic and in conflict with the First Amendment.>
I don't like the idea of turning monopolies into effectively state organs with public carrier designation. Just split them up like Ma bell in the 70s-80s. That was beautiful for progress. Freed up innovation.
Or, more easily, we could punish collusive, monopolistic behavior by corporate entities that are clearly in cahoots with a major political party. Except that major political party is engaged in collusive, fraudulent behavior with its "competing" party that prevents a break-up of this stranglehold over media and power.
He voted against fair use for APIs. He really wants to destroy tech. Uncle Ted couldn't even imagine how much damage to our Tech world that would have caused if Oracle would have won that law suit.
I hope this man has SERIOUS security.
They allow a certain percentage of politicians to be "pure", to give the illusion of legitimacy.
It's all about majorities.
4 downvotes, name accurate
Finally someone gets it.
We need eyes on Pedosta.
Someone should drop him a Nigerian Prince link so we can get access to his new email account. I’m sure he’s dumb enough to fall for it again.
It's probably
"Lmwither"
Clarence Thomas Shows the Path Forward on Big Tech
Thomas implied that Section 230 immunity for Big Tech firms may itself be constitutionally problematic and in conflict with the First Amendment.
By Josh Hammer
April 8, 2021
A realignment, as many have observed, is now unfolding in American politics. The Republican Party and its conservatism is now the home for the “Somewheres,” to borrow the term from David Goodhart’s 2017 book, The Road to Somewhere, which refers to the more traditionalist, hardscrabble patriots of the American heartland. The Democratic Party and its increasingly hard-left progressivism, by contrast, is the home for the “Anywheres”—those highly educated, mobile, “woke” elites comprising the bicoastal ruling class.
The Big Tech issue is the tip of the spear of the realignment. As has been made painfully obvious the last few years, with last October’s collusive Big Tech assault on the New York Post for its election-season reporting on Hunter Biden’s overseas travails serving as an eye-opening pinnacle, Big Tech is now the ruling class’s catspaw. These modern-day robber barons are willing and able to lend their censorious assistance to the ruling class’s ruthless entrenchment of its ideological and political hegemony. Big Tech, in short, is the leading private-sector appendage with which the Anywheres cow into submission and subjugate the Somewheres.
This emergent reality has caused no shortage of heart palpitations among some of the more “liberal” elements of the American conservative firmament. Conservatives, many were taught, stand for unadulterated laissez-faire and a staunch commitment to deregulating corporate America. What to do, then, when those unshackled big corporations turn around and come after us?
The answer, for many, has been to carefully reassess what exactly it is we stand for as conservatives—especially as it pertains to unaccountable, concentrated corporate titans who control the 21st-century equivalents of the old public square. To wit, there is nothing particularly “conservative” about a zealous, dogmatic refusal to countenance state actions that might better channel the content curation and moderation decisions of a behemoth such as Amazon—which has at least an 80 percent market share in digital books—toward the common good of the American polity. Ditto Google, which has a nearly 90 percent market share in online search.
But the historical bromance between the GOP and chamber of commerce-style corporatism has been an obstinate hindrance to reform. Big Tech-skeptical, pro-realignment conservatives have all too often had their legal and policy arguments on such issues as antitrust enforcement and Section 230 reform thrown back in their faces by doctrinaire, limited-government enthusiasts who insist that True Conservatism is synonymous with hands-off private-sector fundamentalism. “Build your own Google!” the corporatists and libertarians have scowled.
On Monday, the most important conservative lawyer in the nation, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, came out swinging on the side of the reformers.
In his concurrence in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, Thomas opined: “Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors. Also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties.”
Later, after a discussion of the centuries-long history of “common carrier” regulation—in modern times, most often applied to transportation networks like rail and communications networks like telephony—and places of “public accommodation,” Thomas wrote: “There is a fair argument that some digital platforms are sufficiently akin to common carriers or places of accommodation to be regulated in this manner.”
Seemingly speaking directly to regulators and legislators at both the federal and state level, Thomas also added, “If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform’s right to exclude.” Seldom is a Supreme Court justice clearer and more forthright than that. Finally, in a footnote toward the end of his concurrence, Thomas implied that Section 230 immunity may itself be constitutionally problematic and in conflict with the First Amendment.
With the imprimatur of America’s greatest living conservative—who happens to be one of the greatest Supreme Court justices ever—the path forward for the Big Tech-skeptical right is clear. We can and must use all tools necessary in our policy and legal arsenal to rein in the Big Tech oligarchs before it is too late. Section 230 reform and antitrust enforcement against the most egregious offenders of concentrated power, such as Google and Amazon, are fine places to begin.
But as Thomas urges, and as many of us have argued at least since the New York Post hullabaloo last October, we should think even bigger than that. It’s time to get serious about applying “common carrier” regulatory frameworks and “public accommodation” Civil Rights Act statutory frameworks, and to reclaim our self-governing democracy from the Silicon Valley technocracy before it is too late.
https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/08/clarence-thomas-shows-the-path-forward-on-big-tech/
This man is based, big brain and hates Old Joe for the excessive pain he caused him in senate hearing and Supreme Court appointment.
Joe Biden and his hired THOT
4chan is the only site that actually upholds the 1st amendment
I think you mean 8chan / 8kun. 4chan does censor afaik. That said, I trust 8kun less now that Ron is gone, and he is working on a new project he’s been keeping pretty quiet about. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on the Mike Lindell’s Frank team or even Trump’s new platform team.
Fuck jannies
<shrug> i haven't lived in that space in like 10 years
so maybe things have changed
Means he’s not doing anything. When will you people get it?
Aside from this one
say the n word
say something about jesus and prophet mohammad or the jews
say something absurdly shitty about trump
don't act like this site is free. it has its own "safe space" rules
Okay. The eyewitness and testimonial evidence from both Christian and non-Christian contemporaries combined with early and wide spread under persecution, and preserved chain of custody evidence all support the conclusion that Jesus is The Lord our God. Mohammad by his own “holy” scriptures, the Quran and ahadith, is revealed to be not a prophet, but a lying pedophile warlord slaver rapist adulterer thief murderer.
During his “prophetic” ministry, Muhammad was deserted by his scribe, Ibn Abi Sarh. At issue was the charge that Muhammad allowed Abi Sarh to make changes to the Quran causing him to become disillusioned about how easily the supposed eternal word of Allah could be changed. These events could obviously cause serious damage to Muhammad’s reputation. As a means of damage control Allah send down another one of his many “convenient revelations:
So the Quran here makes a rather stark claim: If Muhammad dies through the cutting of his aorta, he is a false prophet. So how did Muhammad die according to the most venerable Islamic traditions? The widely accepted details of Muhammad’s death are very well known. He was given poisoned meat by a Jewish lady as revenge for his actions against her people at the Battle of Khaibar. Interestingly, she placed the poison in the meat as a test of his prophethood, stating:
Elsewhere she is shown to have gifted him a meal of roasted goat on which she had poisoned his favorite part to eat, the foreleg:
What is even more interesting, in the context of Quran 69:44-46, is that there are several strong traditions that state that Muhammad died through the cutting of his aorta:
and:
He himself spoke in Quran 69:44-46 the fate of a false prophet, then went on tho experience exactly that himself! Someone who affirms his own status as a false prophet has to be the most obvious false prophet in history!
Please refrain from referring to that scumbag who has ruined so many lives and souls as “the Prophet.” He was a self-interested swindler whose chief focus in life was attaining as much sex, money, and power as he could. As you read above, he was also dumb. After all, he died after accepting a poisoned meal from a Jewish woman whose husband he had recently murdered by torture and beheading. Would you eat a free meal from a woman whose husband you had just murdered? Below are some other related passages about his death.
The reason behind her action was the killing of her people and family by Muhammad.
Am I doing this right?
You skipped the two obvious ones lol.
Nagger.
Trump got two scoops of ice cream while everyone else was only allowed to get one!!!
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Self censor and avoiding jews, point proven I think.
Nailed it
nope
If you want to be objective about it, you'll see that Jesus is the only one that the MSM allows you to abuse.
Speaking against Mohammad or the Jews will get you punished.
nope
My prediction, any new regulations will be narrowly applied to GAB, and other independent, media.
This guy gets it.
Don't forget, if anyone disagrees with him, like Jack, or Spez, or the Borg, IMMEDIATELY label them racist, just like they did us when we disagreed with Obama.
They don't care. You know it damn well that they never live up to their own standards, and most of their accusations against you are confessions about themselves.
They don't care because we don't push it beyond their initial apathy to it.
At all. Ever.
Why would you push liberals to become even more liberal than they already are? What's the benefit?
I'm more interested in showing more neutral observers around them what racist, bigoted, ignorant pieces of shit those liberals already area. I don't really give a shit if the idiots somehow "become more liberal" because we're calling out their bigotries.
I see. Your plan to defeat liberalism is to promote it as a just and correct set of values. Good luck.
LOL. You're really not making any sense.
If only we had an entire court of this man.
Antonin Scalia was killed I believe, so Clarence must be safe.
It's clear many of the people in power are compromised. Epstein flights, Robert?
Watch out! They gonna Scalise this guy.
You meant Scalia. Scalise is still alive.
You right. Sorry about that.
Smoke and mirrors these ain't judges there cowards pede
"No standing, Next"
Justice Thomas and Justice Alito where the only 2 to vote to hear Texas's case, as they (correctly) said that the Supreme Court can not refuse to hear an Original Jurisdiction case.
This man will go down in history as one of the great, courageous justices.
He actually considers situations and their ramifications rather than doing the popular thing.
There are very few people in the legal environment that do the right thing--mostly, they make the legal profession an ignoble profession. A big departure from the original intent of the American justice system.
The same people that are responsible for tearing down America are the ones that have tainted and corrupted the justice system. They have turned law and order on its head.
Josh Hammer uses a lot of words to say what could have been said in two or three paragraphs and doesn’t offer anything new here.
They were well written words and reached other people. Memes for idiots and well thought out articles for the smart idiots. We need to use the same "death by a thousand cuts" method the communists have been using for years.
Clarence Thomas is a warrior for freedom. But his hands are tied by the other Justices of the cowardly Supreme Court. Big Tech needs to be broken up much like AT&T was years ago. “Baby Google” has a nice ring to it.
Seemingly speaking directly to regulators and legislators at both the federal and state level, Thomas also added, “If the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked: laws that restrict the platform’s right to exclude.” Seldom is a Supreme Court justice clearer and more forthright than that. Finally, in a footnote toward the end of his concurrence, Thomas implied that Section 230 immunity may itself be constitutionally problematic and in conflict with the First Amendment.>
Twitter banned my black sock puppet, racist bastards!
I, for one, hope there's a legal group somewhere working on a suitable case that could be the test of this.
The DS wants to Scalia him so they can elevate Garland to the court.
If your trusting a JUDGE you have already lost badly and do not know it yet.
It was archived here https://archive.is/bZg1l
I love Bill Richmond’s explanation on Crowder the other day. It really broke down why this is an excellent avenue to go down.
"Joseph..."
I don't like the idea of turning monopolies into effectively state organs with public carrier designation. Just split them up like Ma bell in the 70s-80s. That was beautiful for progress. Freed up innovation.
Question is, will 4 other justices side with him?
Or, more easily, we could punish collusive, monopolistic behavior by corporate entities that are clearly in cahoots with a major political party. Except that major political party is engaged in collusive, fraudulent behavior with its "competing" party that prevents a break-up of this stranglehold over media and power.
He voted against fair use for APIs. He really wants to destroy tech. Uncle Ted couldn't even imagine how much damage to our Tech world that would have caused if Oracle would have won that law suit.
All optics. This is order to give the crooks at the top some semblance of credibility. The guy is a piece of shit. He does what he is told to do.