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.

Dumbass....

Hardly. But feel free to tell me what you think is wrong with what I said. Use your words.

You never said if it is allowable for moderators to restrict speech that does not violate the TOS, or if a TOS is legal that restricts what is allowable to only one viewpoint.

Bodyslam

Bodyslam? LOL!!

The 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from the gov't. It does not have any effect on what happens on private property.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Because social media websites wouldn’t exist without it.

Whoopie fucking doo. They will be sued into oblivion.

Or Bolivian, if you're Mike Tyson.

FUCK THEM. GO TO FUCKING HELL!!!

Jesus, Trump really turned you into a broken person.

Why, because I don't give a fuck about whether social media exists and they only exist because your god, government, gave them a carve-out?

 

[WinterBorn]

Try reading DeSantis law.

I am a big fan of DeSantis and I like the spirit of the law, I'm just not sure of its constitutionality.

Legally speaking, why shouldn't YouTube be permitted to ban content that it dislikes?

Because the American Communist Party has the power to kill people who say what it doesn't like and financially reward those that it does like. The end result is a massive loss of freedom for the people with the alternate viewpoint. So the constitution is the problem as it was not written when words could travel around the world instantly OR vanish instantly. So the people that are not heard are not really there if no one hears. All have the right to be heard

The US Constitution was also written at a time when private property was respected and the owner of that private property could decide what happens on it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?

What do you think you’re suing them for?

Read the bill. This is giving Floridians a cause of action.

 

[colfax_m]

Read the bill. This is giving Floridians a cause of action.

I did. Amazing that no one else has.

Their cause is of action is not constitutional.

 

[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?

You break the rules for not posting on topic all the time old man, so ban yourself

I have posted off topic, that much is true. But it was always in response to your comments. So if I wanted to be that strict about people posting off topic, I would ban you the first time you did it, instead of responding to it.

 

[colfax_m]

Why, because I don't give a fuck about whether social media exists and they only exist because your god, government, gave them a carve-out?

If you don’t give a fuck, you wouldn’t be celebrating.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why, because I don't give a fuck about whether social media exists and they only exist because your god, government, gave them a carve-out?

If you don’t give a fuck, you wouldn’t be celebrating.

I said I don't give a fuck if they exist.

Nuance?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Read the bill. This is giving Floridians a cause of action.

I did. Amazing that no one else has.

Their cause is of action is not constitutional.

How so?

 

[Dusty]

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.

I just reported the news chuckles, so do not lose the rest of your hair

And I commented on the story and your reporting of it.

As for my hair, I solved that problem 20 years ago this month.

You shaved your hair when you were 70?

 

[colfax_m]

How so?

It’s because they’re asking for damages basically for not publishing material.

Social media has a constitutional first amendment right to not publish.

 

[colfax_m]

Why, because I don't give a fuck about whether social media exists and they only exist because your god, government, gave them a carve-out?

If you don’t give a fuck, you wouldn’t be celebrating.

I said I don't give a fuck if they exist.

Nuance?

Not giving a fuck means that you don’t care one way or the other. It appears to me that you do care if they exist.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I couldn't agree more. We have libs, moderates, and conservative mods here. I would say it's pretty balanced from what I've seen.

I got here several years ago because I used to be on Topix. Topix was very liberal and constantly deleted conservative posts. So I left there and came here. I contacted the company to tell them why. A couple of years ago I brought up the forum Topix here, and another member replied that Topix was off the internet. I checked out the claim and it was 100% true. They were gone.

That's the way it's supposed to work in the free world. Apparently I wasn't the only conservative that got sick of Topix shit.

 

[Dusty]

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?

You break the rules for not posting on topic all the time old man, so ban yourself

I have posted off topic, that much is true. But it was always in response to your comments. So if I wanted to be that strict about people posting off topic, I would ban you the first time you did it, instead of responding to it.

Should you have the right to post off topic then ban someone for answering your off topic post, if your babbles meant anything you would ban yourself.

 

[struth]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.

Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.

Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.

I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS

Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.

this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.

I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.

This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.

well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right

they can publish and edit whatever they want

but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities

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.

that’s fine. Then they have nothing to worry about.

 

[struth]

the bill allows folks to sue for damages...libel and slander are two torts you can sue for

You could always sue social media for libel and slander. Those are not the damages the bill refers to.

haha no you couldn’t they have been immune

the bill allows lawsuits now in fL

geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here

 

[colfax_m]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

 

[Dusty]

Try reading DeSantis law.

I am a big fan of DeSantis and I like the spirit of the law, I'm just not sure of its constitutionality.

Legally speaking, why shouldn't YouTube be permitted to ban content that it dislikes?

Because the American Communist Party has the power to kill people who say what it doesn't like and financially reward those that it does like. The end result is a massive loss of freedom for the people with the alternate viewpoint. So the constitution is the problem as it was not written when words could travel around the world instantly OR vanish instantly. So the people that are not heard are not really there if no one hears. All have the right to be heard

The US Constitution was also written at a time when private property was respected and the owner of that private property could decide what happens on it.

Actually the constitution was written because private property was not respected. Try reading a history book instead of the cigarette label

 

[colfax_m]

geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here

I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.

 

[Dusty]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

Ain't it a great bill?