Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Lays Sees Big Tech Censorship as Major Threat

The Supreme Court has largely been useless in stopping corporate and state tyranny in recent times. But one Supreme Court Justice may actually be changing the conversation on Big Tech.

Historically, Clarence Thomas has been one of the most solid justices in the highest court of land. Apart from being a steadfast supporter of conservative principles, Thomas recognizes the real nature of Big Tech. Unlike your normie conservative elected official, Thomas views Big Tech as a major threat to free speech rights.

On April 5, 2021, Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court will ultimately have to address the 3 ton elephant in the living room that is Big Tech censorship. In his view, the Court’s failure to act on Big Tech censorship will lead to the death of free speech in the 21st century. Thomas alluded to the immense power Facebook and Google hold when it comes to the censorship of dissenting opinions.

Betsy McCaughey of the New York Post observed that Thomas’ remarks came at a time when Democrats in Congress are clamoring for Big Tech to engage in more censorship. For example, back in March 25, Democrat members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce demanded that Big Tech leaders clamp down on social media discourse that threatens “social-justice movements.”

Thomas’ recent comments were made during a case that involved former President Donald Trump. While Trump was in office, on several occasions, he blocked some of his critics on Twitter. A number of those critics sued Trump for his actions, because they believe that Trump’s presidential Twitter account functions as a public forum.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the case is moot due to Trump no longer being in office. Thomas was in agreement with the Supreme Court’s action and also agreed with a lower court ruling that Trump violated the First Amendment by blocking his critics on a public forum.

That said, Thomas broadened the conversation by voicing concerns about Big Tech’s power when it comes to censoring and outright banning people who voice controversial opinions on social media. He was perturbed in particular by how social media whales were able to boot former president Trump from his social media account “at any time for any or no reason.”

In his opinion, Thomas wrote that “One person controls Facebook . . . and just two control Google.” In effect, three individuals have the power to unperson any America, above all, the executive of the most powerful country in human history. Thomas believes that the Court must set the record straight and check Big Tech’s power.

Thomas argued that these companies function as common carriers or public utilities as opposed to traditional, private entities, and must be regulated accordingly. McCaughey explained what this kind of regulation would look like:

AT&T can’t refuse to open a phone account for you or limit your conversations based on your worldview. Likewise, Southwest Airlines can’t pick and choose who rides its aircraft based on their opinions about transgenderism or #Russiagate. Yet the tech giants get to do exactly that. 

Similarly, Thomas compared Big Tech to “public accommodations” in the same vein as hotels and baseball stadiums. Such venues are legally mandated to provide services to all individuals and not engage in discrimination. If America is a nation of laws, it should apply them to everyone on an equal basis. If it can’t do so, it’s just another corrupt political body.

Thomas gets the bigger picture. But it’s highly doubtful that Biden, whose installation as US president was largely brought about by Big Tech interference in the 2020 elections, and mainstream conservative institutions, who receive substantial funding from Big Tech, won’t do anything of substance to shackle Big Tech’s powers.

Real leadership will be needed to confront the many arms of the present-day woke regime. Thomas should be praised for pointing out the obvious, although America desperately needs leaders within the Republican Party to step up to the plate and pass legislation that significantly puts Big Tech under the purview of the national interest.

Due to the current makeup of the Supreme Court, we cannot expect any rulings to hold Big Tech accountable. The answer will have to be legislative in nature.