The Dumbest Supreme Court Judge Strikes Again: Clarence Thomas Goes Full Derp On The First Amendment

[Gaius46]

So you think debate politics should not be able to discipline forum members who violate the terms of service?
That everyone should be able to post whatever it is they want no matter how hurtful it might be?
Because if you want zero censorship at the other Internet driven sites why should this one be treated any differently?

DP has a couple thousand members. FB has 250 million. Scale matters in this discussion.

 

[justabubba]

DP isn’t big enough to matter. I think it should apply to the big tech companies

What is the size standard and who gets to establish it? And why did you arbitrarily determine size is the basis for exclusion?

 

[Grand Mal]

You're really upset by a black man who thinks for himself, aren't you?

There it is. The first race card on the table, played by a rightist.
Why is Clarence Thomas being black something you need to bring into the discussion? I know, because when a black person says something you agree with they become one of the good ones and their blackness is like a trophy to the right.

 

[justabubba]

DP has a couple thousand members. FB has 250 million. Scale matters in this discussion.

Who gets to determine the size of the entity which falls on one side of the scale or another? Will that scale be static or will it be able to be adjusted? Who will make those determinations and adjustments?

 

[Grand Mal]

Dammit! It only took 10 posts for the race card to be played, and I had the "OVER" @ 15

A black conservative is like a trophy for the right. Hence the "but he's black so you can't disagree with him!' attitude.

 

[justabubba]

I think Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are gatekeepers to public discourse. A random geocities page, or random off brand website, not so much. I think once you hit a threshold of users you should get a special designation.

kicking people off YouTube for problematic content is problematic, imo Maybe they should instead put warnings on the content.

I’d also say that the rules are basically don’t do direct threats of violence. Like what is defined in Brandenburg v Ohio which is the relevant case law to free speech right now. If you do direct threats of violence, pull down that video not the whole account.

otherwise censorship will be weaponized against political thought

Why should my platform be obligated to carry your content?

 

[AGENT J]

DP has a couple thousand members. FB has 250 million. Scale matters in this discussion.

why?
based on what?
why should I be punished for popularity/success?

 

[justabubba]

And remember, Justice Thomas lied for years about his wife's income on his federal declaration forms.
"The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires all federal judges to disclose their spouse's employer. They are not required to list the total income."

Justice Clarence Thomas Amends 20 Years of Disclosure Forms With Wife's Employers

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas amended 20 years worth of financial disclosure forms today after a liberal watchdog group questioned the omission of his wife's place of employment.

abcnews.go.com

Why would you expect Clarence Thomas to know and properly apply the law because he’s only a Supreme Court justice of decades tenure

 

[Craig234]

don't believe a word libs say re him or anything

Good advice for your posts.

 

[BlueTex]

Er, the Supreme Court already ruled on just that.


I would need to see a link for that please. It certainly could be seen in court as denying a licence based on freedom of religeon, which could definitely could be concidered unconstitutional. Perhaps it hasn't been challenged in court yet.

I suggest reading the actual opinion in Masterpiece v. Colorado and pay particular attention the narrowness of the opinion...

 

[justabubba]

Yes, social media sites are allowed to have rules and standards but bakeries are not.

Let’s go with your bakery example and then introduce a customer who exhibits extraordinarily abusive behavior toward other customers including children, while nude. Why is it not within the authority of the business owner to ban that person from returning to the bakery because that person failed to display sensible decorum?
The premise of this thread says the bakery owner should not be given that authority to ban that abusive customer. Instead it tells us that the business owner must tolerate such unacceptable behavior

 

[MamboDervish]

Why would anyone be heartbroken that a cesspool such as what Twitter is should become 'a very quiet, very lonely place'?

My point exactly. I won't miss it.

 

[Gaius46]

Who gets to determine the size of the entity which falls on one side of the scale or another? Will that scale be static or will it be able to be adjusted? Who will make those determinations and adjustments?

Those are good questions and I have no idea at this point to be honest. Right now I’d be happy if more people actually recognized the free speech implications of having the public square controlled by private interests.

 

[Gaius46]

why?
based on what?
why should I be punished for popularity/success?

Because if you control the public you control the information that tens or hundreds of millions of people get access to. TBH that’s better than having your own army.

 

[justabubba]

Those are good questions and I have no idea at this point to be honest. Right now I’d be happy if more people actually recognized the free speech implications of having the public square controlled by private interests.

your premise is flawed
private interests do NOT control the flow of informstion at the public square
addressing the internet, they only control the limits of their bandwidth
nothing keeps other platform entities from participating in that marketplace of ideas

 

[AGENT J]

Because if you control the public you control the information that tens or hundreds of millions of people get access to. TBH that’s better than having your own army.

they dont control the public though, nor do they control the information . . all that is CHOICE.

theres no reason to punish me and infringe on my rights based on success and populiarty

 

[Variant]

The SCOTUS never decided on that issue.

They decided for the cake shop, on narrower grounds, so it's hard to use that case as precedent for public accommodations.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If the SC had decided the case in the opposite direction and in the broader rather than narrower sense then we could use it as precedent.

As things stand the bakers were not compelled to provide public accommodations.

So in reply to the post:

Well, if a baker can be compelled to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding then it stands to reason that a social media platform can be compelled to allow content it disagrees with.
It would, but the bakers case went the other way.

I replied: It would, but the bakers case went the other way.

Which means that compelling bakers to provide cakes for homosexual weddings would indeed lend precedent and support for holding online platforms accountable to the same standard.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I’m sure there are isolated instances right now. But, the left isn’t strong enough in my estimation to matter right now. But, I’d rather protect against censorship now. so that if a time comes when Communist or socialist politics has enough strength to go mainstream, it cannot be censored on information platforms. If that day ever comes and we haven’t established YouTube, Twitter, etc as places free from censorship, then leading accounts of any socialist or communist movement will be moved against

You want communists and socialists to have free reign to promulgate propaganda, unchecked, on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other privately owned platforms?

I’m definitely not onboard for that.

Section 230 should remain in place, unchanged. If it can be proved that a privately owned platform wrongly discriminates against or unfairly censors a particular group, that is when, if necessary, Congress should become involved with investigating and making changes where needed to maintain a consistent, fair environment for all of it’s users.

 

[Winston]

You want communists and socialists to have free reign to promulgate propaganda, unchecked, on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other privately owned platforms?

I’m definitely not onboard for that.

Section 230 should remain in place, unchanged. If it can be proved that a privately owned platform wrongly discriminates against or unfairly censors a particular group, that is when, if necessary, Congress should become involved with investigating and making changes where needed to maintain a consistent, fair environment for all of it’s users.

I view CNN, CNBC, and MSNBC as mostly propaganda networks. But, Facebook hasn’t censored them for propaganda? Any time they let Mike Pompey go on TV and lie about Iran, that is the definition of propaganda. But, that is not censored.

see, it’s a matter of perspective. I think the fairest way is to extend 1A protections to account on social media. Otherwise both of us know that any real left wing group will be moved against.

 

[Yakshi]

A black conservative is like a trophy for the right. Hence the "but he's black so you can't disagree with him!' attitude.

The assumptions behind that kind of thinking are so odd. It's as if they really believe that all black people think alike, such that when one of them shares an opinion that they agree with with, it becomes headline news in their minds . . . and at Fox News.

A few days ago, it was Charles Barkley. Today it is Clarence Thomas.

They should get out more.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Conservatives will not stop being pissed that private companies aren’t going to be used for their dumb Russian disinfo campaigns, so the right’s SC lapdoggy is barking up bullshit legal shields to try to goose-step things along.

We need SC term limits, and we need to change that court. Hoo boy.

If SCOTUS manages to rule that these corporations are common carriers it's going to generate ALL KINDS of unintended consequences.
Read Thomas' references to "public accommodation" carefully.
I see bakeries and almost every other privately owned business in those words. When you're one of two bakeries in town and both of them hate gay marriage, the public is not being accommodated.
And anyone who doesn't see it that way better open up their wallets to start paying for Twitter, Facebook and Instagram SUBSCRIPTIONS because that's how they will react if Thomas carries the day.
And once these platforms DO become subscription based, there's no turning back.

 

[BlueTex]

I think Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are gatekeepers to public discourse. A random geocities page, or random off brand website, not so much. I think once you hit a threshold of users you should get a special designation.

kicking people off YouTube for problematic content is problematic, imo Maybe they should instead put warnings on the content.

I’d also say that the rules are basically don’t do direct threats of violence. Like what is defined in Brandenburg v Ohio which is the relevant case law to free speech right now. If you do direct threats of violence, pull down that video not the whole account.

otherwise censorship will be weaponized against political thought

Maybe they are big BECAUSE they don't allow the type bullshit that gets banned... Have you even been a moderator on a board?

 

[Yakshi]

If SCOTUS manages to rule that these corporations are common carriers it's going to generate ALL KINDS of unintended consequences.
Read Thomas' references to "public accommodation" carefully.
I see bakeries and almost every other privately owned business in those words. When you're one of two bakeries in town and both of them hate gay marriage, the public is not being accommodated.
And anyone who doesn't see it that way better open up their wallets to start paying for Twitter, Facebook and Instagram SUBSCRIPTIONS because that's how they will react if Thomas carries the day.
And once these platforms DO become subscription based, there's no turning back.

I know that conservatives are pushing for this idea more and more, but I sincerely doubt that social media outlets will be ruled to be common carriers for one basic reason: under the law, they aren't.

 

[BlueTex]

If SCOTUS manages to rule that these corporations are common carriers it's going to generate ALL KINDS of unintended consequences.
Read Thomas' references to "public accommodation" carefully.
I see bakeries and almost every other privately owned business in those words. When you're one of two bakeries in town and both of them hate gay marriage, the public is not being accommodated.
And anyone who doesn't see it that way better open up their wallets to start paying for Twitter, Facebook and Instagram SUBSCRIPTIONS because that's how they will react if Thomas carries the day.
And once these platforms DO become subscription based, there's no turning back.

Fortunately, congress has the power, not SCOTUS... the very idea of a common carriers was enacted through legislation not through the constitution...

 

[Carl Young]

How is a wedding cake violent or threatening the public good? Are you equally threatened by a red velvet cupcake?
.

What are you going on about? Did I claim a cake was violent or threatening? Do you never get embarrassed by your silliness?