Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

12 

BIDEN v. KNIGHT FIRST AMENDMENT INSTITUTE  
AT COLUMBIA UNIV. 
THOMAS, J., concurring 

has sued Twitter.  The question facing the courts below in-
volved only whether a government actor violated the First 
Amendment by blocking another Twitter user.  That issue 
turns, at least to some degree, on ownership and the right
to exclude. 

* 

* 

* 
The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut
off speech by using the features that Twitter made available 
to him.  But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smoth-
ered,  then  the  more  glaring  concern  must  perforce  be  the
dominant  digital  platforms  themselves.  As  Twitter  made 
clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the 
hands of private digital platforms.  The extent to which that 
power  matters  for  purposes  of  the  First  Amendment  and
the extent to which that power could lawfully be modified 
raise  interesting  and  important  questions.    This  petition,
unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them. 

—————— 
Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 232 (1956); accord, Skinner v. Railway Labor Ex-
ecutives’ Assn., 489 U. S. 602, 614–615 (1989).