Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said the high court should reexamine the federal law that gives social media websites like Facebook broad legal immunity when those platforms are used to commit crimes.
NBC News reports the justice’s comments came after the high court declined to hear an appeal from a Texas woman who as a teenager was friended by a man under a false name on Facebook who was, in reality, a sex trafficker. After she had a fight with her mother, the man tricked the then-15-year-old girl into thinking she could make enough money by modeling in order to live on her own.
The woman says after the man picked her up, she was raped, beaten, photographs were taken of her and she was forced into sex trafficking.
Her lawsuit argues Facebook should have realized the man, who was using a fake identity, was involved in criminal activity, because “the trafficker’s account was littered with photos and other content that were clear signs of human trafficking.”
***Please sign up for CBN Newsletters and download the CBN News app to ensure you keep receiving the latest news from a distinctly Christian perspective.***
“Indeed, the users Facebook connects unquestionably include sex traffickers and their victims. Facebook knows that human traffickers use its products ‘to identify, cultivate, and then exploit human trafficking victims.’ Nonetheless, Facebook remains an active participant in facilitating these connections,” the lawsuit contends.
After the unidentified woman was rescued from her trafficker by law enforcement, she sued the social media platform. But the Texas Supreme Court said a provision of a federal law, known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, gives social media sites and other internet providers immunity from lawsuits that arise from something posted by a user, according to NBC News.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the woman’s appeal on Monday. Although Thomas agreed with the court’s decision not to take the case, he said it “should address the proper scope of immunity” in an appropriate case.
Thomas said the law’s interpretation is too broad.
“It is hard to see why the protection §230(c)(1) grants publishers against being held strictly liable for third parties’ content should protect Facebook from liability for its own ‘acts and omissions’,” Thomas said in a statement. “At the very least, before we close the door on such serious charges, we should be certain that is what the law demands.”
“Assuming Congress does not step in to clarify §230’s scope, we should do so in an appropriate case. Unfortunately, this is not such a case. We have jurisdiction to review only ‘final judgments or decrees’ of state courts,” the justice said.
“I, therefore, concur in the Court’s denial of certiorari. We should, however, address the proper scope of immunity under §230 in an appropriate case,” he concluded.
Thomas has spoken out against Big Tech before, especially on the subject of free speech. As CBN News reported in April of 2021, Thomas railed against the unchecked power of Big Tech, including social media giants like Twitter and booksellers like Amazon, to control speech in America.
Thomas’s comments came on the heels of a somewhat related Supreme Court case. It was about former President Donald Trump’s efforts to block critics from his personal Twitter account. The Court declared that case moot since Twitter has banned Trump, but Thomas said the case raises a lot of very big issues that will need to be addressed soon.
“Today’s digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech… also unprecedented, however, is the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructures such as digital platforms,” the justice wrote.
Thomas also noted the need to legally address the control of online content available to the American public.
“If part of the problem is private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then part of the solution may be found in doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude,” he wrote.
The remainder of this article is available in its entirety at CBN
