Supreme Court Tosses Dispute Over Trump Blocking Critics On Twitter

The Supreme Court has vacated a previous ruling that found
former President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking his
Twitter foes.

The ruling was upheld by a Manhattan federal appeals court in
2019, which deemed Trump’s actions unconstitutional. The court
found that because Trump used Twitter to “conduct official
business” and interact with the public that his decision to block
users ran afoul of the First Amendment.

“… The First Amendment does not permit a public official who
utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes
to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because
they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” a trio of
judges wrote in that decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the prior ruling isn’t a
total surprise — Trump is no longer president and he’s banned from
Twitter for life at this point.

What was unexpected was an accompanying opinion issued by
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas which pushed well beyond the
issue at hand into novel criticisms of major tech platforms.

Thomas pivoted away from Trump’s Twitter behavior in the 12-page
opinion, mounting an argument that the moderation powers of digital
platforms like Twitter and Facebook are the real problem. “If the
aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more
glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms
themselves,” Thomas wrote.

He went on to raise concerns about “concentrated control” of
digital platforms by a handful of decision makers, arguing that
digital platforms exercise too much power in making moderation
decisions. “Much like with a communications utility, this
concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over
speech,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas’s opinion Monday echoed his previous arguments that the
protections conferred to digital platforms by Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act should be “pared back” and interpreted
far more narrowly.

With Democrats at the wheel in Congress, some Republicans have
shifted their criticisms of big tech away from its moderation
powers and toward other issues, like how those services affect
mental health. But the suite of grievances stirred up over the
course of Trump’s four years in office lives on in Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas.

In January, Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, a fervent Trump
supporter, faced criticism for cheering on the pro-Trump crowd that
went on to violently invade the U.S. Capitol.

Thomas was not joined by other justices in his opinion, but his
interest in tech’s moderation decisions is a signal that the issue
is far from dead.

“We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal
doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information
infrastructure such as digital platforms,” he warned.

The Supreme Court has vacated a previous ruling that found
former President Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking his
Twitter foes.

The ruling was upheld by a Manhattan federal appeals court in
2019, which deemed Trump’s actions unconstitutional. The court
found that because Trump used Twitter to “conduct official
business” and interact with the public that his decision to block
users ran afoul of the First Amendment.

“… The First Amendment does not permit a public official who
utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes
to exclude persons from an otherwise open online dialogue because
they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” a trio of
judges wrote in that decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision to vacate the prior ruling isn’t a
total surprise — Trump is no longer president and he’s banned from
Twitter for life at this point.

What was unexpected was an accompanying opinion issued by
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas which pushed well beyond the
issue at hand into novel criticisms of major tech platforms.

Thomas pivoted away from Trump’s Twitter behavior in the 12-page
opinion, mounting an argument that the moderation powers of digital
platforms like Twitter and Facebook are the real problem. “If the
aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more
glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms
themselves,” Thomas wrote.

He went on to raise concerns about “concentrated control” of
digital platforms by a handful of decision makers, arguing that
digital platforms exercise too much power in making moderation
decisions. “Much like with a communications utility, this
concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over
speech,” Thomas wrote.

Thomas’s opinion Monday echoed his previous arguments that the
protections conferred to digital platforms by Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act should be “pared back” and interpreted
far more narrowly.

With Democrats at the wheel in Congress, some Republicans have
shifted their criticisms of big tech away from its moderation
powers and toward other issues, like how those services affect
mental health. But the suite of grievances stirred up over the
course of Trump’s four years in office lives on in Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas.

In January, Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas, a fervent Trump
supporter, faced criticism for cheering on the pro-Trump crowd that
went on to violently invade the U.S. Capitol.

Thomas was not joined by other justices in his opinion, but his
interest in tech’s moderation decisions is a signal that the issue
is far from dead.

“We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal
doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information
infrastructure such as digital platforms,” he warned.