Why does a Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas think that free speech clause applies to private social media companies?

Why do you continue describing giant corporations that have billions of customers as "private?" That's asinine.

There is no definition of the word "private" which applies to publicly-traded corporations that serve the public.

The idea that corporations are completely independent of the federal government is libertarian idiocy.

cause thats the way he wants it to be

2nd edit so based on your belief.. the phone company can interrupt your call, tell you they don’t like your conversation and disconnect your line, and that’s fine because they’re a private company?   Do you see how silly your position in now?

Edit.... I didn’t make the law. If you want them to be censors, then remove their special status, you know the status that protects them if someone did post kiddie porn. You people just can’t grasp it can you?

Because it’s not that simple, these companies have been granted special legal status similar to a utility company and they cannot be sued for content. However they want to act as a publisher. They cannot have it both ways. It’s that simple, even a censorship loving liberal should be able to grasp it.

Supreme courts make laws.  The second amendment talks of a "well regulated militia" yet unregulated rabble that have no interest in the nation are permitted to carry guns courtesy of a partisan supreme court ruling.  In simple terms the supreme court does not, and never has, abided by the letter of the constitution.  It interprets is overall meaning including historical references, speeches made at the time and any other information that helps it to decide what is REASONABLE. Free speech requires actual freedom that cannot be impinged by back door restrictions.  ie making laws that indirectly permit individuals or companies to infringe free speech is every bit as bad as making a law to directly impinge on free speech.  The supreme court is entitled to make the decision that laws allowing, or supporting, ANYONE to censor free speech are unconstitutional if it so chooses.  And no amount of Republican ranting can change what the supreme court chooses.  Of course stacking the court with partisan judges can work irrespective of the constitution which is why the traitor in chief did just that.  All part of the strategy to become the supreme dictator of the USA.

Yep ...YA's on the way out...but Cancel Culture is about to get served, Supreme Style.

(:

I can't wait.

He's not too bright.  He rarely participates in the work of the United States Supreme Court and that's on the record.  And he was a Republican choice for the job.

Have you read his opinion? You may want to start there. 

Obviously, his knowledge towers over you

AND even higher over ^^^Jude and Chucky for sure