Excitement About Justice Thomas grumbles over Trump's social media ban

Thomas wrote that Congress has actually offered digital platforms some legal protection related to the content they distribute, "however it has actually not imposed matching obligations."Under Area 230 of the Communications Decency Act, web business can moderate material on their platforms but are shielded from liability for material their users produce. Some social media posts, however, characterized Thomas' opinion in more powerful terms, saying that he had actually identified social media business are not protected by the First Modification in banning some speech which Section 230 is unconstitutional."BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas discovers social networks business do not have First Modification right to ban protected speech and that Area 230 is unconstitutional," conservative figure Jack Posobiec published on Twitter quickly after the opinion was launched on April 5.

Justice Thomas shows how we can end Big Tech censorship for good

Thomas was not joined by any of the court's eight other justices in the concurring opinion which carries no precedential weight. Legal and policy specialists who reviewed the opinion stated in interviews with USA TODAY that Posobiec's and Fournier's posts mischaracterized what Thomas wrote."I do not believe that characterization is precise, and I do not think that is what Thomas is saying," stated professor Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law.Posobiec and Fournier might not be grabbed comment. Its history extends back
to the early days of the web. In 1996, Congress passed the Communications Decency Act.  This Author  of that legislation remained in part a response to a New York state trial court's choice to hold an early online provider accountable for statements a user published about the Stratton-Oakmont financial investment firm, according to a Congressional Research study Service report.The choice hinged on the service supplier exercising editorial control over material on its website. The report explains that some have actually credited Area 230 with advancement

Supreme Court: Cheerleader can't be punished for social posts - Los Angeles  Times

of the contemporary internet. However the rise of social networks has actually fueled calls for modification to the 25-year-old law, with some saying it gives too much power to social networks business to censor political views and others claiming those business do not do enough to stop the spread of false information. Thomas compares social media and other web business to utilities serving as "typical carriers