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

[WinterBorn]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

its not so much about the rules as much as its about the selective way they enforce them,,

they created this,,

And you would have to prove a bias. That would be difficult, if not impossible to do.

 

[WinterBorn]

This forum is a perfect example of a PLATFORM. It does NOT censor speech, with the infrequent exception of when one calls for another to be murdered or for posting something pornographic, etc. Users here CAN and DO criticize masks, vaccines, etc.

Speech is quite free here in USMB. It should shine as an example to the other idiots out there (Political Jack, Political Hotwire, etc)

Nope, not free. There's a graveyard of posters who've been permanently banned.

And why were they permanently banned? For repeatedly breaking clearly stated rules?

 

[Oddball]

But since their censorship has a profound effect on society at large, is it "morally" acceptable?

Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution is our nation's governing document and it's not based on what is "morally acceptable". Anyone that tries to sue YouTube, etc., is going to have to demonstrate how they are in violation of law and then Florida's new law will have to withstand the scrutiny of the SCOTUS and in how it relates to the Consitution.

So what is the legal argument?

How about that cyberspace is the ultimate virtual public square, worthy of all the freedoms, protections, and responsibilities that apply to any other public square?

 

[progressive hunter]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

its not so much about the rules as much as its about the selective way they enforce them,,

they created this,,

And you would have to prove a bias. That would be difficult, if not impossible to do.

its been well proven many times,,,

 

[John T. Ford]

On some issues I am leftist. On some issues I am a rightwinger. Your attempt to label me changes nothing.

But do explain how this law is limited to only huge corporate entities.

OK ...

Fair enough.

Start with comment #37.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Amen to that. I keep saying Desantis would be a great president,If he got elected,this would feel like America again instead of a communist dictatership as we have seen from the likes of Bush,Obama and now Biden and the previous five administrations from 1981 all the way up to 2016.

I am watching him closely ....

But, you know Free and Secure Elections are now a thing of the past.

Yeah I don’t expect him to get elected.we have never had free elections for decades now actually.the elite always make sure whoever they want in gets in.FDR spilled the beans on that saying in politics nothing happens by accident,everything happens by design.trump getting elected was a fluke,they underestimated him,they made sure they did not make the same mistake twice.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

Exactly. Expect lawsuit inbound if any of my posts are censored in any way going forward

Just think, I could actually own this forum with the stroke of a pen.

1st order of business....fire ALL current moderators !!!!!

Well....I think they should keep falcatenn and maybe 1 or 2 more.

Though I love coyote and that other gal ya know but..........hehheh

 

[John T. Ford]

And why were they permanently banned? For repeatedly breaking clearly stated rules?

Dude ...

Those sites make up the rules as they go along.

They ban members that they disagree with.

It has absolutely nothing to do with rules.

 

[protectionist]

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

Sometimes this hinges on one's subjective interpretation of the "set rules". For instance, the forum Political Jack has this paragraph in its Terms & rules >>

"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws."

So what is "abusive' ? What is "likely to offend" " What is "defamatory" ? etc

Suppose with these terms, one called a poster a "racist" for supporting race-based Affiramtive Action. Would that fit these adjectives ? One judge might say yes. Another might say no.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

Exactly. Expect lawsuit inbound if any of my posts are censored in any way going forward

Just think, I could actually own this forum with the stroke of a pen.

1st order of business....fire ALL current moderators !!!!!

 

[John T. Ford]

Yeah I don’t expect him to get elected.we have never had free elections for decades now actually.the elite always make sure whoever they want in gets in.FDR spilled the beans on that saying in politics nothing happens by accident,everything happens by design.trump getting elected was a fluke,they underestimated him,they made sure they did not make the same mistake twice.

Yes ....

Even if it meant this time showing their cards.

 

[Oddball]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

its not so much about the rules as much as its about the selective way they enforce them,,

they created this,,

And you would have to prove a bias. That would be difficult, if not impossible to do.

Shoving nearly all threads questioning the results of the 2020 election into Conspiracy Theories, while leaving most idiotic RUSSIA COLLUSION! threads wherever that they were created for three years is a glaring example.

The honest brokers have resigned...I know some of them, and agree with their reasons for stepping down.

 

[John T. Ford]

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

Sometimes this hinges on one's subjective interpretation of the "set rules". For instance, the forum Political Jack has this paragraph in its Terms & rules >>

"You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which is defamatory, abusive, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content, contains personal information of others, risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws."

So what is "abusive' ? What is "likely to offend" " What is "defamatory" ? etc

Suppose with these terms, one called a poster a "racist" for supporting race-based Affiramtive Action. Would that fit these adjectives ? One judge might say yes. Another might say no.

Exactly ....

Rules that are designed to make up the rules as they go along.

 

[K9Buck]

There's a graveyard of posters who've been permanently banned.

Undoubtedly. There are a lot of whacked-out people out there.

I've told a couple of moderators here (in the past) to go fuck themselves and I wasn't banned. I don't think it gets any more tolerant than that. LOL.

 

[protectionist]

Good luck imposing laws on companies in other states.

Companies (or individuals) can be held liable with respect to the laws of the state of the plaintiff.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

This forum is a perfect example of a PLATFORM. It does NOT censor speech, with the infrequent exception of when one calls for another to be murdered or for posting something pornographic, etc. Users here CAN and DO criticize masks, vaccines, etc.

Speech is quite free here in USMB. It should shine as an example to the other idiots out there (Political Jack, Political Hotwire, etc)

Anybody ever visited the conservative cave or Politics forums.....those conservative mods will ban you quicker than any liberal board will....both of them have a good ole boy network going....they suck up to the mod and control the board...they do not like any newbies that are smarter than they are.

 

[K9Buck]

How about that cyberspace is the ultimate virtual public square, worthy of all the freedoms, protections, and responsibilities that apply to any other public square?

I guess that's the $64,000 question.

Under existing law, there is no requirement for them to provide a "public square" to the public. Perhaps a law could be passed that requires them to permit freedom of expression, but the Democrats would NEVER support it.

 

[EvMetro]

I doubt a lawsuit could squeeze enough out of a small forum like this to even cover the cost of the attorney. All that is behind the mod power orgy on this site is a little Wizard of Oz.

"mod power orgy"? LMAO!! Yeah, we are all drunk with the extensive power we wield.

Not all the mods here are involved in it, thank God. It only takes 3 to make an orgy.

 

[Faun]

This forum is a perfect example of a PLATFORM. It does NOT censor speech, with the infrequent exception of when one calls for another to be murdered or for posting something pornographic, etc. Users here CAN and DO criticize masks, vaccines, etc.

Speech is quite free here in USMB. It should shine as an example to the other idiots out there (Political Jack, Political Hotwire, etc)

Nope, not free. There's a graveyard of posters who've been permanently banned.

And why were they permanently banned? For repeatedly breaking clearly stated rules?

Presumably. Mods don't share that information with me.

 

[K9Buck]

How about that cyberspace is the ultimate virtual public square, worthy of all the freedoms, protections, and responsibilities that apply to any other public square?

We need a law to stop the overwhelming amount of discrimination that leftists engage in against conservatives. But, like I just said, the Democrats will NEVER go along with it.