The Charlie Kirk Show - Clarence Thomas Takes on the Big Tech 'Triangle of Tyranny'

00:00:00.000 Hey everybody, this episode is brought to you by my friends at ExpressVPN, expressvpn.com slash Charlie.

00:00:07.000 Secure your device, anonymize your online activity, protect your action online, expressvpn.com slash Charlie.

00:00:17.000 Help our show out by also helping yourself protect yourself.

00:00:21.000 Expressvpn.com slash Charlie.

00:00:24.000 Hey everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk show, we go to the entire hour, Clarence Thomas, who issues a scathing rebuke against the tech companies and offers some hope of how we can challenge them.

00:00:35.000 If you want to support us, go to charliekirk.com slash support.

00:00:39.000 If you want to get involved with Turning Point USA, go to tpusa.com and email us your questions.

00:00:44.000 As always, freedom at charliekirk.com.

00:00:46.000 Buckle up, everybody.

00:00:47.000 Here we go.

00:00:49.000 Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.

00:00:50.000 Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.

00:00:52.000 I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

00:00:56.000 Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.

00:00:59.000 I want to thank Charlie.

00:01:00.000 He's an incredible guy.

00:01:01.000 His spirit, his love of this country, he's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created.

00:01:08.000 Turning point USA.

00:01:10.000 We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

00:01:18.000 That's why we are here.

00:01:22.000 I don't know about you, but I feel like I'm always looking at a screen now more than ever.

00:01:26.000 And whether you're an avid news watcher or in serious need of a distraction, unplugging yourself is easier said than done.

00:01:32.000 One of my favorite ways to rest my eyes and still get the content I'm inching for, by putting in my Raycon wireless earbuds and listening to something great.

00:01:40.000 Whether you're catching up on a favorite news podcast, binging an audiobook, or powering through your workout with pumped-up playlist, a pair of Raycons in your ears can make all the difference.

00:01:48.000 Raycons are built to perform anywhere or anytime with water and sweat resistant construction and Bluetooth at pairs quickly and seamlessly.

00:01:54.000 Raycon's offering 15% of all their products for my listeners.

00:01:57.000 And with enough battery life for six hours of playtime, you can unplug for a while.

00:02:02.000 Go to buyraycon.com slash Kirk.

00:02:04.000 That's it.

00:02:05.000 You get 15% off your entire Raycon order.

00:02:07.000 So feel free to grab a pair and a spare.

00:02:09.000 That's 15% off at buyraycon.com slash Kirk.

00:02:13.000 Buyraycon.com slash Kirk.

00:02:18.000 Justice Clarence Thomas, who is my favorite Supreme Court justice, he's an originalist.

00:02:24.000 He's a textualist.

00:02:26.000 He believes in the natural rights doctrine.

00:02:28.000 He believes that in God-granted rights.

00:02:31.000 He's a believer in liberty.

00:02:34.000 Came out and set the record straight when it comes to big tech and the massive tech oligarchs running our country.

00:02:44.000 I'm reading from the New York Post, quote, on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas announced that the Supreme Court soon will have to put an end to big tech tyranny.

00:02:54.000 If the high court fails to act, it could mean the end of free speech in the 21st century.

00:02:59.000 And as he puts it, relegating free speech rights to just simple paper rights.

00:03:07.000 Clarence Thomas came out and eloquently and said, quote, one person controls Facebook and just two control Google.

00:03:17.000 Three people, in other words, have the power to disappear any of us from the digital public square, even a commander-in-chief.

00:03:27.000 The Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, argues, must rein in this unaccountable tyranny.

00:03:37.000 So before I go any further, I feel like I'm reading from a podcast script as if Justice Thomas has been listening to what we've been saying.

00:03:44.000 So we've been making this argument for the last couple of years, and I'm beyond thrilled to see the United States Supreme Court, at least one person of the nine on the Supreme Court, speak this language.

00:03:57.000 But this is bigger than I think most people realize because Justice Clarence Thomas is not quick to say that we should use government against a quote-unquote private company.

00:04:11.000 That's the argument that the big tech companies use when they fund a lot of the libertarian think tanks, or these libertarian think tanks then push out their white papers saying we should never touch Google, never touch Facebook, never touch Twitter because they're allegedly private companies.

00:04:34.000 Now, we've gone through why that's not the case in great detail.

00:04:37.000 If you drive from Gary, Indiana to Chicago, you will probably drive on the Chicago Skyway.

00:04:43.000 And the Chicago Skyway is a private highway.

00:04:47.000 It's a private public partnership.

00:04:50.000 It is against the law for the owners of that private partnership to say you are not allowed to ride or drive on our highway based on your ideological views.

00:05:00.000 It has to be for everyone accessible to anyone that has a car.

00:05:05.000 That's an interstate highway, and tech companies are information highways.

00:05:12.000 Since they are information highways, we must understand that the purpose of these tech companies should be to have the most amount of access and speech.

00:05:27.000 So Clarence Thomas coming out is a big deal in the fight against big tech for a variety of reasons.

00:05:37.000 Let me name a couple.

00:05:39.000 Number one, other judges and lawyers that want to become judges across the country on the state, local, county, and federal level that are in the originalist tradition take what Clarence Thomas says very seriously.

00:05:58.000 That's Clarence Thomas comes out less as a judge in this opinion and more as a scholar.

00:06:04.000 It's almost like in the political world, when Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson says something, we all listen carefully.

00:06:12.000 When they say something new or they are trying to set a trend, that's a big deal for us.

00:06:18.000 You have to understand in the legal community, looking up to Supreme Court justices for guidance is not just normal.

00:06:25.000 They are taught to do that.

00:06:27.000 So Clarence Thomas is very well known for believing in God-granted rights.

00:06:34.000 And again, what I call the Straussian, Lockean tradition of natural rights doctrine.

00:06:42.000 What is the natural rights doctrine?

00:06:45.000 Well, the natural rights doctrine was the ideas behind the Declaration and the Constitution.

00:06:51.000 It starts with a moral claim that no person should be dominated by another without their consent.

00:07:03.000 It's a pretty simple rule.

00:07:05.000 That no person should be able to be ruled over without that term that pops itself up all over the Constitution and in the Federalist papers, consent of the governed.

00:07:19.000 It comes from a belief of negative rights, not positive rights.

00:07:23.000 What's the difference?

00:07:25.000 Negative rights are that who you are naturally, government can't take away from you unless you did something to warrant the sacrificing or the removal of those rights.

00:07:40.000 Your right to speech, your right to consciousness, your right to own property, your right to take risk, your right to travel, your right to express your beliefs.

00:07:52.000 Those are inalienable.

00:07:57.000 In the Declaration of Independence, it says very clearly that the social contract or the social compact that we have from the Lockean tradition is one that governments and the role of government exists to protect and secure those rights, not administer them.

00:08:18.000 You asked Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who is also a social contract theorist, literally wrote a book on the social contract.

00:08:28.000 Thomas Hobbes was the other social contract theorist who came to the wrong conclusion, but the right observation when it came to human behavior.

00:08:38.000 Rousseau would say that government is the administer of these rights, that government exists to tell you what you can and cannot do.

00:08:49.000 Whereas those of us that are conservatives or Americans, pro-American, I should say, we would say, no, no, no, we tell the government what they can and cannot do.

00:08:58.000 They take orders from us, that no one has a right to rule another.

00:09:03.000 That is a moral claim that is made repeatedly in our founding documents.

00:09:10.000 That is a moral claim that the founding fathers worked very hard to get their words right on.

00:09:19.000 And generally, they really did.

00:09:22.000 So Clarence Thomas is a believer in the natural rights doctrine.

00:09:27.000 Now, natural rights doctrine has fallen out of favor in almost every single academic circle across the country.

00:09:35.000 They believe that it's not God that administers your rights.

00:09:40.000 That God is a questionable proposition at best.

00:09:43.000 Instead, they believe that a central ruling authority, the state, is why you're even able to exist in the first place.

00:09:55.000 They would believe in a John Rawls veil of ignorance approach to anything we would consider rights.

00:10:07.000 So Clarence Thomas comes from that tradition, and I could do an entire podcast just on natural rights, where they come from, why it's so important, how we take it for granted.

00:10:21.000 But to tie it back to this news story, and we're going to explore this throughout the hour together, Clarence Thomas saying this, coming from a position that government must be used sparingly and rarely, is a big deal, and it spells trouble for these tech companies.

00:10:44.000 Your credit card company found suspicious charges on your card.

00:10:47.000 That's simple identity theft.

00:10:49.000 It's annoying, but they cover it.

00:10:51.000 The type of fraud you really need to worry about is home title theft, a devastating crime that takes you off your home's title.

00:10:58.000 And you're not covered by insurance or most identity theft programs.

00:11:02.000 That's why you need home title lock.

00:11:05.000 Here's how easy it is for cyber criminals to get you.

00:11:08.000 The title documents to our homes are kept online.

00:11:10.000 The thief forges your signature on a quit claim deed, stating you sold your home and that he's the new owner.

00:11:17.000 Then he borrows money using your home's equity and leaves you in debt.

00:11:21.000 You won't know until late payment or eviction notices arrive.

00:11:24.000 The instant home title lock detects someone tampering with your home's title, they help shut it down.

00:11:31.000 Let's get you protected.

00:11:32.000 Go to hometitalock.com and register your address to see if you're already a victim and enter the code radio for 30 free days of protection.

00:11:39.000 That's promo code radio at home titlelock.com.

00:11:45.000 Someone just emailed us.

00:11:46.000 They said, Charlie, what does this mean for platform access for those of us that have been kicked off social media?

00:11:51.000 I'm going to get to that question.

00:11:53.000 It's a great question.

00:11:54.000 I love hearing from you.

00:11:55.000 Freedom at CharlieKirk.com.

00:11:57.000 We're continuing with Clarence Thomas's scathing statement against the tech companies.

00:12:03.000 Clarence Thomas rejected the free market absolutist argument about competition limiting big tech tyranny.

00:12:12.000 He pointed to substantial barriers to entry that face newcomers.

00:12:19.000 The fate of Parlor proves the justice's point. 1.00

00:12:22.000 I'm reading from the New York Post.

00:12:23.000 Clarence Thomas coming out and arguing from a natural rights doctrine that we must, quote, reign in the tech companies should be a warning shot to the big tech oligarchs.

00:12:35.000 The oligarchs are deciding to ignore more than half the country in their anxiety around this issue.

00:12:44.000 They instead want to dominate you.

00:12:46.000 They want to addict your children to these devices.

00:12:49.000 And I've said this before: that no young person under the age of 18 should be given a smartphone.

00:12:53.000 It's that simple.

00:12:55.000 That parents giving children smartphones spells the end of their humanity and the beginning of their cyborg age and era.

00:13:06.000 I'm more and more convinced that these tech companies act as predators with young people and students across America.

00:13:17.000 So this was an opinion that was issued by Thomas, Clarence Thomas, the great Clarence Thomas, who, by the way, is not in the Black History Museum.

00:13:31.000 Go figure that one out.

00:13:34.000 Clarence Thomas writes: When a person publishes a message on the social media platform Twitter, the platform by default enables others to retweet the message or reply.

00:13:47.000 The user who generates the original message can manually block others from republishing or responding.

00:13:55.000 Donald Trump, the president of the United States, blocked several users.

00:13:58.000 They sued, and the second court held that the comment threads were a, quote, public forum, and that the president violated the First Amendment.

00:14:08.000 You see, Clarence Thomas is so smart here.

00:14:10.000 This is why this is such a big deal.

00:14:12.000 He's using circuit court decisions to affirm the point in the argument that these tech companies must be regulated.

00:14:23.000 It's brilliant.

00:14:25.000 He continues by saying the disparity between Twitter's control and Mr. Trump's control is stark, to say the least.

00:14:31.000 Mr. Trump blocked several people from interacting with his messages.

00:14:35.000 Twitter barred Mr. Trump from not only interacting with a few users, but removed him from the entire platform, thus barring all the other users from interacting with his messages.

00:14:45.000 Under its own terms of service, Twitter can remove any person from its platform, including the president, at any time for any reason, according to Twitter Incorporated user agreement.

00:14:56.000 This is not the first time or the only case used to raise issues about digital platforms.

00:15:02.000 And Clarence Thomas goes and mentions a bunch of them.

00:15:07.000 So the entire argument that Clarence Thomas makes surrounds on the issue, I should say it focuses on the issue of Donald Trump not having access to his Twitter account and how it actually happened.

00:15:19.000 He continues by saying, if part of the problem is a private company, 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.

00:15:33.000 Historically, at least, two legal doctrines limited a company's right to exclude.

00:15:39.000 And he goes on, he mentions them.

00:15:40.000 First, our legal system and its British predecessor have long subjected certain businesses known as common carriers to special regulations.

00:15:49.000 And he goes after 230 with great eloquence.

00:15:54.000 He continues by saying, the other one is if the good serves the, quote, public interest.

00:16:02.000 And he says, at this point, a company's property is, quote, not its own, but its instrument and the means of rendering the service which has become that of a public interest.

00:16:15.000 Man, is this guy smart?

00:16:16.000 And he's, of course, not in the black history museum because he is not sufficiently black, because he's a free thinking, constitutional-loving conservative. 0.79

00:16:24.000 And to the left, that deserves no platform whatsoever.

00:16:28.000 And you want to talk about someone that every young black person should know about and aim to become?

00:16:34.000 It's Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, a courageous, clear-thinking man who grew up in absolute poverty and rose all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

00:16:47.000 Clarence Thomas authored an amazing response to the tech companies, saying that it is time to regulate them because of the natural rights doctrine.

00:16:58.000 So I mentioned earlier, this is a big deal, and I've made this argument.

00:17:01.000 I'm so pleased to see Clarence Thomas make it, is that we do not want to break up the tech companies because we lust for government takeovers.

00:17:10.000 We want to regulate them and break them up because we care about natural rights, because we care about free speech, because we care about God-granted liberties that are being violated by these despots in Silicon Valley.

00:17:26.000 Continues by saying, internet platforms, of course, have their own First Amendment interests, but regulations that might affect speech are valid if they would have been permissible at the time of the founding.

00:17:37.000 See United States versus Stevens in 2010.

00:17:41.000 The long history in this country and in England of restricting the exclusion right of common carriers and places of public accommodation may save similar regulations today from triggering heightened scrutiny, especially where a restriction would not prohibit the company from speaking or force the company to endorse the speech.

00:18:00.000 Clarence Thomas continues by saying, in many ways, digital platforms that hold themselves out to be public resemble traditional common carriers.

00:18:11.000 Though digital instead of physical, they are at the bottom communication networks and they carry information from one user to the other.

00:18:18.000 Let me just stop here and explain what he's talking about here.

00:18:22.000 Clarence Thomas is basically saying Facebook and Twitter, they don't create any content of their own.

00:18:27.000 They're starting to get into the content creation business, but almost everything on their platform is carrying one piece of information from person A to person B. What a brilliant argument.

00:18:40.000 Quite honestly, I didn't think about this.

00:18:43.000 Clarence Thomas is saying, this is not a media company.

00:18:46.000 This is not a company that is producing new thoughts and new ideas.

00:18:52.000 They're not a company that has massive investments in production.

00:18:57.000 They're not a company like Fox News or the Charlie Kirk Show or Washington Post, where they have infrastructure that thinks of what to say and how to say it, guests and perspectives.

00:19:10.000 No, no, no.

00:19:11.000 This is a piping company.

00:19:14.000 That's right.

00:19:15.000 They just get one thing from one place to the other.

00:19:18.000 It's a valuable service, but they're not actually in the content creation business.

00:19:24.000 That's a really important distinction.

00:19:26.000 And when they are, YouTube is just funding other people's shows.

00:19:29.000 And I think that would be the only exception to what I just said.

00:19:31.000 And that's a new development because I think those tech companies are trying to anticipate the response to them.

00:19:37.000 Clarence Thomas continues by saying, a traditional telephone company laid physical wires to create a network connecting people.

00:19:46.000 Digital platforms lay information infrastructure that can be controlled in much the same way.

00:19:51.000 And unlike newspapers, Clarence Thomas argues, digital platforms hold themselves out as organizations that focus on distributing the speech of the broader public.

00:20:02.000 Federal law dictates that companies cannot, quote, be treated as the publisher or speaker of information that they merely distribute.

00:20:13.000 And he cites the code in the criminal code.

00:20:17.000 The analogy to common carriers is even clearer for digital platforms that have dominant market share.

00:20:25.000 This is a very detailed piece, by the way.

00:20:29.000 I am going to reinforce for the third or fourth time how big of a deal this is.

00:20:33.000 This is a Supreme Court justice that just takes out his sword and starts waving it and saying, We're coming after you, tech companies.

00:20:41.000 And it's thoughtful and it's detailed and it's nuanced and it's philosophically and morally sound.

00:20:49.000 Continues by saying, The internet, of course, is a network, but these digital platforms are networks within that network.

00:20:56.000 The Facebook suite of apps is valuable largely because 3 billion people use it.

00:21:04.000 He's right.

00:21:05.000 Google search, at least 90% of the market share, is valuable relative to other search engines because more people use it, creating data that Google's algorithm uses to refine and improve search results.

00:21:20.000 These network effects entrench these companies.

00:21:23.000 Ordinarily, the astronomical profit margins of these platforms last year, Google brought in $182.5 billion total and $40 billion in total net income or profit, which would induce new entrants into the market.

00:21:41.000 These companies have no comparable competitors and highlight that the industries may have substantial barriers to entry.

00:21:47.000 I mentioned this earlier, but we're getting actually into the Supreme Court.gov statement here.

00:21:54.000 Where Clarence Thomas says very clearly, Google brought in $182.5 billion, which is larger than the GDP of several Eastern European countries.

00:22:04.000 That's their revenue.

00:22:06.000 Google and Facebook together say Facebook suite of apps is valuable because of the 3 billion people that use it.

00:22:14.000 Do you see what he's doing here?

00:22:17.000 This is so brilliant.

00:22:19.000 And only someone like Justice Thomas or Anthony and Scalia could pull this off.

00:22:24.000 He's making an argument that we would make against limiting government, against limiting private corporations.

00:22:32.000 He's making an argument without the reader really realizing it.

00:22:36.000 That if you hate tyranny and you believe in the moral claim of the consent of the governed, of which are all claims that are made in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration, people say all the time, Charlie, what is the Declaration about?

00:22:47.000 What was the revolutionary war about taxes?

00:22:49.000 No.

00:22:50.000 Was it about T?

00:22:54.000 No.

00:22:55.000 There's a beautiful quote from a man that fought at Lexington and Concord, and he asked us about taxes.

00:23:00.000 T, no.

00:23:00.000 No.

00:23:02.000 He said, it's about who's telling us what we can do and can't do.

00:23:06.000 The revolution was about consent.

00:23:10.000 The revolution was about who's in charge.

00:23:13.000 The revolution was about: do we have a voice against King George?

00:23:19.000 Well, now we have King Google.

00:23:21.000 And Clarence Thomas is brilliantly and legally challenging their oligopoly using language that appeals to those of us that love natural rights because Clarence Thomas is sending a public memo to other judges across the country and other legal scholars across the country.

00:23:39.000 Wake up and get this right.

00:23:41.000 These are not private companies.

00:23:43.000 That's what Clarence Thomas is doing here.

00:23:45.000 Clarence Thomas is trying to lay down the law to some judge in Montana or Nebraska who read these briefs for fun.

00:23:54.000 And this thing got circulated all throughout legal communities.

00:23:56.000 I can tell you that as a fact.

00:23:58.000 Where they say, did you say what Justice Thomas said here?

00:24:01.000 Ah, it's a private company.

00:24:02.000 No, no, no, no.

00:24:03.000 Go read what he had to say.

00:24:05.000 Where his former clerks who've become partners at law firms and his former clerks that have become judges, they're reading this saying, wow, I didn't think about that.

00:24:14.000 You see, what Justice Thomas is doing here is he's moving the Overton window.

00:24:20.000 He's moving the window saying, if you love liberty, you must break up these companies.

00:24:26.000 That argument is not being made enough.

00:24:30.000 Instead, the argument is they're too big, too powerful.

00:24:34.000 We don't like big companies.

00:24:35.000 And I actually sympathize with that more and more.

00:24:38.000 But you're not going to win over most judges that went through rigorous, intense, and detailed constitutional law, courses, classes, and clerkships on just an argument on economic monopolization.

00:24:56.000 It's not going to work.

00:24:58.000 So Clarence Thomas is trying to start not just a movement, but some positive progress in the legal community to say, prove me wrong.

00:25:11.000 Clarence Thomas continues by saying, to be sure, much activity on the internet derives value from network effects, but dominant digital platforms are different.

00:25:22.000 Unlike decentralized digital spheres, such as email protocol, control of these networks is highly concentrated.

00:25:30.000 Although both companies are public, one person controls Facebook and just two people control Google, as I mentioned earlier.

00:25:36.000 No small group of people control email.

00:25:40.000 He continues by saying, much like with a communications utility, this concentration gives some digital platforms enormous control over speech.

00:25:51.000 When a user does not already know exactly where to find something on the internet and users rarely do, Google is the gatekeeper between that user and the speech of others 90% of the time.

00:26:04.000 It can suppress content by de-indexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content by manually altering autocomplete results.

00:26:14.000 What is Clarence Thomas saying here?

00:26:15.000 Too much power, too few people.

00:26:17.000 It can be abused.

00:26:18.000 That's the argument we use against despotic government all the time.

00:26:25.000 And why I am cheering Clarence Thomas in this is this is the winning argument.

00:26:33.000 People do not like totalitarian impulses, whether it be in private companies or public companies.

00:26:42.000 Clarence Thomas is not being shy and basically saying to anyone that cares to listen, if you believe in the greatest political document ever written in the United States Constitution, with the first couple words, we the people, and you believe in the consent of the governed, then you better get on the program right now to challenge and break these up.

00:27:06.000 As if he was reading or listening to the Charlie Kirk show and I, I don't know, maybe he listens, who knows?

00:27:14.000 I would be stunned, but it would be kind of fun because he says this.

00:27:17.000 It changes nothing that these platforms are not the sole means of distributing speech or information.

00:27:23.000 A person could always avoid the toll bridge or train and instead swim the Charles River or hike the Oregon Trail.

00:27:29.000 But in assessing whether a company exercises substantial market power, what matters is whether the alternatives are comparable.

00:27:37.000 For many of today's digital platforms, nothing is.

00:27:42.000 And why am I chuckling?

00:27:44.000 I've been making that argument when it comes to information highways and infrastructure highways.

00:27:51.000 That of course there's another way to get your information out.

00:27:54.000 You can go write letters to every single person across the country.

00:27:58.000 Of course you can.

00:28:00.000 It's not comparable.

00:28:02.000 Therefore, it violates people's rights to communicate.

00:28:07.000 Remember, we are the speaking beings.

00:28:11.000 There's only two ways to govern people: by force or by speaking and persuasion.

00:28:17.000 When people do not have a right to speak, then it will resort to force, which in and of itself we know does not end well.

00:28:29.000 With the ever-increasing numbers of makes and models of your car, Fiat, Kia, or different models like Pacific or X-T5, it is impossible to stock all the parts you need.

00:28:38.000 You have computers with access to rockauto.com, so why allow yourself to be intimidated by the people that run the auto part stores?

00:28:46.000 One reason to repair and maintain your cars is to save money that you can then use for other important things like the mortgage or food.

00:28:52.000 Why would you choose to spend 30, 50, or 100% more on the exact same auto parts at a chain store or new car dealership?

00:28:58.000 Chain stores have different price tiers for professional mechanics and do-it-yourselfers.

00:29:02.000 Rockauto.com's prices are the same for everybody, and they're reliably low.

00:29:07.000 Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear.

00:29:13.000 Rockauto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.

00:29:17.000 Go to rockauto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.

00:29:22.000 The rockauto.com catalog is unique and remarkably easy to navigate.

00:29:26.000 Quickly see all the parts available for your vehicle and choose the brand specifications and prices you prefer.

00:29:31.000 Go to rockauto.com right now and see the parts available for your car or truck.

00:29:35.000 Write Charlie Kirk in there.

00:29:36.000 How'd you hear about us, Box?

00:29:37.000 So they know we sent you.

00:29:38.000 Amazing selection, reliably low prices, all the parts your car will ever need.

00:29:42.000 Rockauto.com.

00:29:46.000 Justice Thomas continues: if the analogy between common carriers and digital platforms is correct, then an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked.

00:30:00.000 Laws that restrict the platform's right to exclude.

00:30:04.000 When a platform's unilateral control is reduced, a government official's account begins to better resemble a quote government-controlled space.

00:30:14.000 It continues by saying common carrier regulations, although they directly restrain private companies, thus may have an indirect effect on subjecting government officials to suits or lawsuits, basically saying, that would otherwise not be cognizable under our public forum jurisprudence.

00:30:37.000 Clarence Thomas continues by saying, This analysis may help explain the circuit court's intuition that part of Mr. Trump's Twitter account was a public forum.

00:30:46.000 But the intuition has problems.

00:30:50.000 First, if market power is a predicate for common carriers, as some scholars suggest, nothing in the record, that's right, nothing in the record evaluates Twitter's market power.

00:31:03.000 Second, and more problematic, neither the Second Circuit nor respondents have identified any regulation that restricts Twitter from removing an account that would otherwise be, quote, government-controlled space.

00:31:16.000 Clarence Thomas finishes near the end: once again, a doctrine such as public accommodation that reduces the power of a platform to unilaterally remove a government account might strengthen the argument that an account is truly government-controlled and creates a public forum.

00:31:31.000 It finishes with this.

00:31:33.000 The question facing the courts below involved only whether a government actor violated the First Amendment by blocking another Twitter user.

00:31:42.000 That issue turns, at least to some degree, on ownership and the right to exclude.

00:31:47.000 As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms.

00:31:52.000 The extent to that which power matters for the purpose of the First Amendment and the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important questions.

00:32:02.000 And he finishes by saying this particular petition, because he kind of meandered from it, offers no opportunity to confront them.

00:32:12.000 If we do not challenge these tech companies properly through every means that we have at our disposal, there will be no speech as we know it in our country.

00:32:22.000 Clarence Thomas, an originalist and a textualist, is now leading the charge legally against these companies that engage in surveillance capitalism where you are not the user, you are the product.

00:32:35.000 Only addictive drugs and social media companies call the people that use their products users, not customers.

00:32:44.000 Maybe because they're highly addictive.

00:32:46.000 Maybe because they're not good for you.

00:32:49.000 When a company controls 92% of all the volume of search results in a country, what's to say they will not use that power and abuse that power?

00:32:59.000 We do not accept the premise that a president should be unchecked, that a Supreme Court justice can be unchecked, they can be impeached and removed.

00:33:09.000 A member of Congress is up for election.

00:33:12.000 Who checks Google?

00:33:15.000 Where's the consent of the governed when it comes with a small group of people that control all of the speech for all of us?

00:33:24.000 How is that constitutional?

00:33:27.000 To try and protect Sergey Brin's $100 billion?

00:33:31.000 If you have a really good idea that dares question them, or if all of a sudden you come out with a story that they don't like, like the New York Post Hunter Biden story, and you're not able to spread that story or communicate about that story, how is that not a direct and clear violation of the moral right to hear and receive information?

00:33:53.000 Where we are headed is a Soviet-style totalitarianism, a soft totalitarianism that controls the circuits of all the information in our country.

00:34:01.000 And Clarence Thomas is realizing that the threat to speech in our country is not only coming from the federal government, it's coming from once called private companies that are public forums, that are content carriers.

00:34:16.000 They simply connect the dots from one to the other, from point A to point B.

00:34:23.000 They don't come up with their own content.

00:34:25.000 They're simply drawing a line from one to the other.

00:34:29.000 So what do we do about it?

00:34:30.000 It's time to play offense.

00:34:32.000 It's time to start new competitors.

00:34:34.000 Help out rumble at rumble.com, R-U-M-B-L-E.com, the challenge YouTube.

00:34:39.000 There'll be some search engine competitors coming up very soon, so we can stop using Google once and for all.

00:34:44.000 Hopefully, Parlor will be back online.

00:34:46.000 We have to sue. 1.00

00:34:48.000 The states have to sue.

00:34:50.000 And we have to follow the great Clarence Thomas' lead: that if you love liberty, it's time to end our love affair with the tech companies who hate our country.

00:35:02.000 Thanks so much for listening, everybody.

00:35:04.000 If you want to email us, go to freedom at charliekirk.com to do so.

00:35:07.000 And again, if you want to support us and our mission to reach millions of young people, go to charliekirk.com/slash support.

00:35:15.000 God bless you guys.

00:35:16.000 Talk to you soon.

00:35:20.000 For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.

The Charlie Kirk Show - April 07, 2021

Clarence Thomas Takes on the Big Tech 'Triangle of Tyranny'

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript