Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 11.0

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

11 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

apply  in  limited  circumstances,  as  this  Court  has  recog-
nized in the past.

For example, although a “private entity is not ordinarily
constrained by the First Amendment,” Halleck, 587 U. S., 
at ___, ___ (slip op., at 6, 9), it is if the government coerces 
or induces it to take action the government itself would not
be  permitted  to  do,  such  as  censor  expression  of  a  lawful
viewpoint.  Ibid.  Consider government threats.  “People do
not lightly disregard public officers’ thinly veiled threats to 
institute criminal proceedings against them if they do not 
come  around.”  Bantam  Books,  Inc.  v.  Sullivan,  372  U. S. 
58, 68 (1963).  The government cannot accomplish through
threats of adverse government action what the Constitution
prohibits it from doing directly.  See ibid.; Blum v. Yaretsky, 
457  U.  S.  991,  1004–1005  (1982).  Under  this  doctrine, 
plaintiffs might have colorable claims against a digital plat-
form if it took adverse action against them in response to
government threats.   

But no threat is alleged here.  What threats would cause 
a private choice by a digital platform to “be deemed . . . that 
of the State” remains unclear.  Id., at 1004.5  And no party 

—————— 

5 Threats directed at digital platforms can be especially problematic in
the  light  of  47  U. S. C.  §230,  which  some  courts  have  misconstrued  to 
give digital platforms immunity for bad-faith removal of third-party con-
tent.  Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, 592 U. S. 
___,  ___–___  (2020)  (THOMAS,  J.,  statement  respecting  denial  of  certio-
rari) (slip op., at 7–8).  This immunity eliminates the biggest deterrent— 
a  private  lawsuit—against  caving  to  an  unconstitutional  government 
threat. 

For similar reasons, some commentators have suggested that immun-
ity provisions like §230 could potentially violate the First Amendment to
the extent those provisions pre-empt state laws that protect speech from 
private  censorship.  See  Volokh, Might  Federal  Preemption  of  Speech-
Protective State Laws Violate the First Amendment? The Volokh Con-
spiracy,  Reason,  Jan.  23,  2021.    According  to  that  argument,  when  a 
State creates a private right and a federal statute pre-empts that state 
law,  “the  federal  statute  is  the  source  of  the  power  and  authority  by 
which any private rights are lost or sacrificed.”  Railway Employees v.