The Supreme Court should reconsider whether federal law gives social media sites such as Facebook broad legal immunity when they’re used in crimes, Justice Clarence Thomas stated Monday.
Thomas’ comments were made as the court declined to hear an appeal from a Texas girl who was 15 years old when she became friends with a Facebook user who later turned out to have been a sex-trafficker. The then-teenager had an argument with her mom and he told her he could make enough money modeling to afford an apartment of her own .
He convinced her to allow him to pick her up and she was raped and beaten within hours. She was also photographed and forced into sex trading. Facebook should have known he was a criminal. His postings were full of photos and content that clearly showed human trafficking, as his lawsuit alleged.
After being saved by law enforcement, she sued Facebook. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act gives social media sites immunity from any lawsuits that may arise from a post made by a user.
Thomas stated that Thomas’ interpretation of the law was too broad and went beyond what the statute actually states. He stated that courts will dismiss claims against internet companies that they failed to warn customers about product defects or take reasonable steps to protect users against malicious actions by other users.
Thomas stated that it was difficult to see why Facebook should be exempted from liability for its acts and omissions.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the Texas woman. It cited technical hurdles that prevented the court having jurisdiction. Thomas also agreed with the Supreme Court that the court shouldn’t have taken her particular case. He said that it should “examine the proper scope and immunity” in a case.
Thomas made similar comments in previous cases and also stated that social media platforms should not be exempt from lawsuits claiming they restrict conservative views.
Annie McAdams, a Texas lawyer representing the woman, stated that she was disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take up the case. However, she said she agreed to Thomas’s view that the court should clarify its scope.
McAdams stated in a statement that Section 230 does nothing to protect Facebook against liability for its acts and omissions.
Facebook asked the court to not hear the Texas case. The company stated that in the 25-year history of the law, both federal courts of appeals as well as state supreme courts have consistently held that section 232 bars claims seeking to impose liability upon interactive computer service providers for third party content.
