Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

[bripat9643]

There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.

maybe

but that doesn’t negate the fact that all that takes place on facebook and tweeter as well, and they shouldn’t be above the law and protected from liability

That's the point.. Facebook doesn't want the liability associated with lies, slander and bad medical advice. Trump needs to take that on himself.. He's trying to undermine the election process. Facebook doesn't want to be party to that.

Trump should take on the liability of his lies and conspiracy theories.

No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".

You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.

what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

Who does it single out?

My god you are stupid.
Internet platforms and information providers.
You know, just like DuhDumbass bragged.

Try reading some news sometime.

So laws against air pollution from coal fired generators are "singling out" utility companies?

You really are incredibly stupid.

Of course. Laws don't say you can't pollute. They say that if the amount of pollution exceeds X then you get fined Y. Companies then make their business decisions. Coal fired generators or smelting plants, all the same. As permitted by the EPA regulations passed by Congress and affirmed by the SCOTUS. Under that damned General Welfare clause.

This piece of crap? Sorry. 1, 10, and expostfacto.

Wanna try another stupid analogy?

Nope. They have specific regulations for coal fired power plants. For instance, the have rules regulating how tall the smoke stack has to be.

You're simply too stupid to waste time arguing with.

Then go be stupid elsewhere.
It'll be easy for you.

hahah please tell us all about a Bill of Attainder

Sorry. Not a history or law class. Try your local community college. Theyy accept 3rd grade dropouts,

In other words, you don't know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree that that is what the Florida law does. The part where social media is required to give a platform for political candidates is somewhat troubling and probably should be shot down on Constitutional grounds.

The part providing for a cause of action for users if social media is not clear about TOS or has been arbitrary in moderation is anything but telling them how to operate. That's like saying that government providing a cause of action for the defective manufacture of an automobile that causes injuries is telling the auto manufacturers what to do.

Either way, it is government interference. The question is whether or not we are willing to tolerate such interference.

Given some of the shit that's going down, I am torn. Nothing disturbs me more than seeing discourse completely shut down. That is the worst way for a society to arrive at the truth.

As a conservative I want to go on record as not being one of the many hypocrites. Although we have different interests of the conservative movement, my issue is over intrusive government which this is. Over intrusive government is not exclusive to the federal government. State governments, county governments, city or town governments can be just as over intrusive.

I'm a small government conservative. I believe that government on every level is playing too much of a role in every Americans lives. I hate what Facebook does even though I've never been a victim of their practices. But I don't believe in big government when it plays into my favor. You are either for big government or you're not IMO.

Facebook nor Twitter are a necessity. I know plenty of people that don't bother with either. I know people who don't even own a smart phone yet alone a computer or have an internet connection, and they live their lives as happily as can be. Now if you object to what these social media outlets do, quit using them. That's the American way. The problem is that many conservatives are willing to fight against something, just as long as they don't have to make sacrifices of their own. We see this in the entertainment field all the time. Conservatives protest against kneeling at sports events, but refuse to personally boycott them. We protest against Hollywood, but many of us won't stop going to the theaters or rent a movie on pay-per-view. We object to various musicians, but will be the first to buy their latest recording.

 

[protectionist]

If you were paying twitter in order to view their tweets, they would be doing business in Florida. But if their site is merely "viewable" in another state, doesn't mean they're doing business there.
I can view russian websites, but unless they sell me a russian bride, they're not doing business in the USA.

Whatever they're doing, or whatever anybody wants to call it, they better stop discriminating, or their wallets are going get a lot lighter. And nobody should be defending their outrageous discriminations. They're banning Trump, and at the same time, they are allowing cartel members to advertise for drugs and child trafficking.

 

[protectionist]

Actually the law would protect liars, cheats and scoundrels. He would prevent a site from putting any controls over any reprehensible content they chose to post.

FALSE! You are stretching it to far beyond it's thrust. Actually, it is the social media sites who NOT preventing reprehensible content. They are allowing China, Iran, and the mexican cartels to advertise for child trafficking.

 

[protectionist]

The state of Florida can make law against citizens using various social media because they reside there. How they'd be able to enforce that, I don't know. The state can make law to prohibit internet providers (if it's possible) access to Facebook or Twitter within their state because those providers are operating in that state. But Florida cannot make law against a company in Silicon Valley as to what their TOS or practices are when it comes to politics.

That is for judges to decide, and how Florida enforces this, is by civil court judges ruling against the social media companies, and making them pay the amounts of the lawsuits against them. In the case where political candidates are involved, there would be fines, which are a$tronomical.

 

[WEATHER53]

Small government is mostly the way to go but when the biggie businesses won’t do the correct and legal thing then big government is appropriate. It’s there for something other than directing us to hide from Covid

 

[protectionist]

Actually it is. If Trump posts that he won the presidency in 2020, he would be telling a lie that even the US supreme court has ruled saying it was not true.
Trump also libels election officials, accusing them of crimes, or malfeasance.

It is not a lie to say that Trump won the presidency in 2020. Trump won the presidency in 2020.

 

[protectionist]

So Twitter and Facebook and numerous other political sites would have a choice of moving overseas or losing control of their business? Doesn't sound like a tough choice.

Moving overseas is easier said than done. Whole new staffs need to be hired. Language barriers arise. New laws. Cultural differences , etc

 

[protectionist]

If more states follow suit, it is a viable option for them.

With costs$$$.

 

[protectionist]

They flag fake news as such and ban members.

Oh yeah, they flag fake news. They ARE fake news.

 

[protectionist]

As a conservative I want to go on record as not being one of the many hypocrites. Although we have different interests of the conservative movement, my issue is over intrusive government which this is. Over intrusive government is not exclusive to the federal government. State governments, county governments, city or town governments can be just as over intrusive.

I'm a small government conservative. I believe that government on every level is playing too much of a role in every Americans lives. I hate what Facebook does even though I've never been a victim of their practices. But I don't believe in big government when it plays into my favor. You are either for big government or you're not IMO.

Facebook nor Twitter are a necessity. I know plenty of people that don't bother with either. I know people who don't even own a smart phone yet alone a computer or have an internet connection, and they live their lives as happily as can be. Now if you object to what these social media outlets do, quit using them. That's the American way. The problem is that many conservatives are willing to fight against something, just as long as they don't have to make sacrifices of their own. We see this in the entertainment field all the time. Conservatives protest against kneeling at sports events, but refuse to personally boycott them. We protest against Hollywood, but many of us won't stop going to the theaters or rent a movie on pay-per-view. We object to various musicians, but will be the first to buy their latest recording.

The social media giants are more than just a business that you can take it or leave it. They have major control over the minds of Americans.

 

[WEATHER53]

Actually it is. If Trump posts that he won the presidency in 2020, he would be telling a lie that even the US supreme court has ruled saying it was not true.
Trump also libels election officials, accusing them of crimes, or malfeasance.

It is not a lie to say that Trump won the presidency in 2020. Trump won the presidency in 2020.

We are same team but that’s not a correct statement
Where Facebook is in error is not allowing you to state your opinion.
We have a right to be wrong. An opinion can’t even really be a lie. Adult thinkers can decide what’s true and false; we don’t need Nanny Facebook to do it for us.
I don’t know, do you emoters actually want and need Facebook to decide and act for you?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The social media giants are more than just a business that you can take it or leave it. They have major control over the minds of Americans.

I agree with that, but it doesn't give the right for a Governor of one state to try and force them to change their practices.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is for judges to decide, and how Florida enforces this, is by civil court judges ruling against the social media companies, and making them pay the amounts of the lawsuits against them. In the case where political candidates are involved, there would be fines, which are a$tronomical.

And what if they don't pay them? Who is going to force them to?

Already they are taking this to court. No state has jurisdiction over a company that doesn't reside in their state.

 

[WinterBorn]

So Twitter and Facebook and numerous other political sites would have a choice of moving overseas or losing control of their business? Doesn't sound like a tough choice.

Moving overseas is easier said than done. Whole new staffs need to be hired. Language barriers arise. New laws. Cultural differences , etc

The main thing to move overseas are the computers. Where the computers are is where the business is. Have an office for staff here does not change that.

 

[WEATHER53]

The facts killed the fantasy emotions of this thread

 

[WinterBorn]

If more states follow suit, it is a viable option for them.

With costs$$$.

Moving the mainframes would be cheaper than paying out $100k for every whining poster.

 

[dblack]

Small government is mostly the way to go but ...

...only when it benefits me.

 

[dblack]

I don’t know, do you emoters actually want and need Facebook to decide and act for you?

They can't decide and act for me.

 

[WEATHER53]

Small government is mostly the way to go but ...

...only when it benefits me.

That has no meaning as a response to the statement. When you quote and reply, try to have the reply have something to do with the quoted post