Clarence Thomas spent his career on the Supreme Court waiting for a conservative majority to flex its muscles.
That moment may finally have arrived.
Clarence Thomas just dropped the hammer in the one case that Democrats fear the most.
Liberals rigged the 2020 election in part by their ideological allies in Silicon Valley censoring conservative speech.
Facebook and Twitter suppressed truthful and accurate reporting from the New York Post about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop based on the big lie told by the Biden campaign that the story was Russian “disinformation.”
Social media companies also banned anyone that questioned the junk science behind mask mandates or believed the coronavirus escaped from a lab in Communist China.
Big Tech’s attempt to curate the American political conversation culminated with every major social media platform deplatforming Donald Trump.
Clarence Thomas is ready to strike back.
Thomas issued another call to limit Big Tech’s Section 230 immunity in his dissent in the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case of Jane Doe v. Facebook.
In this case, a child rapist used Facebook to lure a young girl to a meeting where he raped her, beat her and trafficked her for sex.
Thomas argued that Congress needed the right case to end Big Tech’s ability to censor speech at will.
“Assuming Congress does not step in to clarify §230’s scope, we should do so in an appropriate case,” Thomas stated.
Thomas admitted that this was not the right case because the lower court allowed the sex trafficking case to proceed while dismissing the common law complaints about Section 230.
“We should, however, address the proper scope of immunity under §230 in an appropriate case,” concluded Thomas.
Last April, Thomas issued a strong call to treat social media companies like common carriers such as the phone companies or post office.
No one would argue your cell phone carrier can turn off your service because they don’t like the content of your text messages.
Thomas laid out two legal arguments as to why social media companies were like the phone or mail carriers and could not ban based on political ideology, writing:
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.
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…
…Second, governments have limited a company’s right to exclude when that company is a public accommodation.
This concept—related to common-carrier law—applies to companies that hold themselves out to the public but do not “carry” freight, passengers, or communications.
Thomas’ dissent in the Jane Doe case suggests that Thomas has five votes necessary to roll back Facebook’s ability to moderate content based on political ideology.
All the Supreme Court needs is the right case.
If you want American Patriot Daily to keep you up to date on any new developments in this ongoing story and the rest of the breaking news in politics, please bookmark our site, consider making us your homepage and forward our content with your friends on social media and email.