Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Florida News

Aron Solomon: the Supreme Court and the Trump Twitter Blocks

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that it may be time to treat social media platforms as common carriers.

On Monday morning, in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute (the Trump Twitter blocks case), the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring.

There is plenty of interest in Thomas’s concurring opinion to the order directing the Second Circuit to dismiss the Trump Twitter blocks case as moot.

Thomas wrote that it may be time to treat social media platforms as common carriers.

“Our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses, known as common carriers, to special regulations, including a requirement to serve all comers,” Thomas wrote.

This case has been under the social spotlight from the time of its filing. The facts of the case are fairly simple and linear. Seven private Twitter users were blocked after they criticized then-President Donald Trump on the platform. For the uninitiated, this means that when those users went on to the Twitter online platform, they could not see the president’s tweets (if they were logged into Twitter) and under no circumstances could they reply to or retweet Trump. So those seven Twitter users sued, joined by the Knight First Amendment Institute, which is part of Columbia University in New York.

Private citizen Donald J. Trump set up his Twitter account in March 2009 and brought it with him to the White House, where it became his most infamous way to send messages to his constituents and the world. Unlike any other president in American history, Trump regularly used the Twitter platform to make policy, discipline personnel, share his opinion on political and entirely non-political issues, and, once he lost the 2020 election, communicate often popular, yet entirely unfounded claims of election fraud.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Twitter or other social media account run by government officials can become a constitutionally protected “public forum” if used to conduct official business. The Supreme Court had earlier ruled that the views of any speaker may not be discriminated against in a public forum, whether in person or online.

Before Trump was voted out of office, the parties continued to battle over the Second Circuit’s decision. Lawyers representing the U.S. Department of Justice claimed that the Second Circuit’s decision means that high government officials could easily have their social media pages destroyed by hate speech and other forms of online harassment.

Of course, when Trump left office in January, the case lost all of its practical impact, the final nail in this online coffin being Twitter’s decision in early January to permanently ban former President Trump for glorifying violence.

Anthony J. Vecchio, a New Jersey-based lawyer, observed that the concurring opinion of Thomas may prove even more important than we imagine today.

“If it becomes the stated position of the Supreme Court that Internet messaging platforms such as Twitter should be treated like phone companies or similar utilities, where does this actually stop? This week’s concurring opinion may very well be opening a door few realistically expected to have opened,” noted Vecchio.

There is an argument to be made here that the 6-3 majority conservative Supreme Court should express more directly what it really means: That they want to support conditions in which the federal government (and, practically, GOP politicos) is able to force private companies such as Twitter to communicate their public messages.

Historians may argue that Thomas is misapplying the law of common carries and the relevant laws that govern public accommodations. Common carriers are duty-bound to serve travelers who are especially vulnerable precisely because they are away from home. Applying this so Silicon Valley social media behemoths may be a stretch.

Skeptics may also say that this is Thomas signaling to lawyers what kind of lawsuits to file. It also might be a sign of inconsistency, given the majority opinion he joined in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale? Again, there might be a rational argument that the only difference between the cases is that Twitter has far more members than the Boy Scouts.

 

Aron Solomon is the Head of Digital Strategy for NextLevel.com and an adjunct professor of business management at the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University.

 

Author

  • A Pulitzer Prize-nominated writer, Aron Solomon, JD, is the chief legal analyst for Esquire Digital and Today’s Esquire. He has taught entrepreneurship at McGill University and the University of Pennsylvania, and was elected to Fastcase 50, recognizing the top 50 legal innovators in the world. Aron has been featured in Newsweek, Fast Company, Fortune, Forbes, CBS News, CNBC, USA Today, ESPN, Today’s Esquire, TechCrunch, The Hill, BuzzFeed, Venture Beat, The Independent, Fortune China, Yahoo!, ABA Journal, Law.com, The Boston Globe, and many other leading publications across the globe.

    View all posts

Archives

Related Articles

Opinion

Op-Ed by Jim Farley President Donald Trump won Florida in the 2024 election by more than 13 points. With nearly 1.5 million more votes...

Political News

President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to abolish the U.S. Department of Education (DOE). Below is an overview of recent votes of involving...

Political News

U.S. Congressman Aaron Bean (FL-04) and U.S. Congressman Cory Mills (FL-07), co-chairs of the Congressional DOGE Caucus, introduced H.R. 2006, the Department of Government...

Education News

 U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-14) issued the following statement in response to President Donald Trump‘s executive order aimed at “dismantling the U.S. Department of...

Advertisement
Florida Daily
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

HOW WE COLLECT E-MAIL INFORMATION:

If you sign up to subscribe to Florida Daily’s e-mail newsletter, you will provide us your e-mail address and name, voluntarily, and we will never obtain any of your contact information that you don’t voluntarily provide.

HOW WE USE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS IF YOU VOLUNTARILY PROVIDE IT TO US:

If you voluntarily provide us with your name and email address, we will use it to send you one email update per weekday. Your email address will not be given to any third parties.

YOUR CONTROLS:

You will have the option to unsubscribe to our E-mail update at anytime by clicking an unsubscribe link that will be provided in each E-Mail we send.