Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, what is the constitutional argument here?It’s because they’re asking for damages basically for not publishing material.How so?
Social media has a constitutional first amendment right to not publish.
What federal law?I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here
No really. I’m against bills that limit freedom of speech. Why do you support limiting freedom of speech? Not a fan of the constitution?Ain't it a great bill?
not sure it does...i suppose we will see when it’s litigatedI do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here
It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.
No, you thought I said that I don't care about this entire topic. You were mistaken. I do NOT care if social media takes a fucking dirt nap, given the power the owners wield. I don't care if they fail. They actually deserve it. But, if they continue to exist, fine.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.I said I don't give a fuck if they exist.If you don’t give a fuck, you wouldn’t be celebrating.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?
Nuance?
Section 230 of course.What federal law?I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here
If they did that they would lose billions of dollars per second in market share so they would never do what you sayTwitter and Facebook could block their service to anyone from a Florida IP address and put a page up saying they no longer accept the regulations imposed by this bill.
They won’t. They’ll launch an army of lawyers to fight it out in court but that’s what I’d love to see.
Someone who claims they don’t care if they exist sure is emotionally invested in seeing them not exist.No, you thought I said that I don't care about this entire topic. You were mistaken. I do NOT care if social media takes a fucking dirt nap, given the power the owners wield. I don't care if they fail. They actually deserve it. But, if they continue to exist, fine.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.I said I don't give a fuck if they exist.If you don’t give a fuck, you wouldn’t be celebrating.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?
Nuance?
Section 230 protects “bulletin boards” - not publishers. We shall see when this law is litigated if the courts find facebook and tweeter has moved beyond their immunity protections.Section 230 of course.What federal law?I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here
They’ve always published content. The federal law says they don’t take on the liability of being a publisher. I know it’s confusing but that’s the truth.also we will see if the Courts say that the federal law doesn’t protect facebook and tweeter since they are in violation of it now that they are publishing content
No. It protects publishers. If they weren’t moderating content, they’d have no need for protection in the first place.Section 230 protects “bulletin boards” - not publishers. We shall see when this law is litigated if the courts find facebook and tweeter has moved beyond their immunity protections
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.You break the rules for not posting on topic all the time old man, so ban yourselfNope, not free. There's a graveyard of posters who've been permanently banned.Speech is quite free here in USMB. It should shine as an example to the other idiots out there (Political Jack, Political Hotwire, etc)
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.
And why were they permanently banned? For repeatedly breaking clearly stated rules?
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.
It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.
This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.
Facebook and Twitter are global companies. Florida is barely going to register.they did that they would lose billions of dollars per second in market share so they would never do what you say
This bill does not limit speech, it allows for more speech. Something that irritates you.No really. I’m against bills that limit freedom of speech. Why do you support limiting freedom of speech? Not a fan of the constitution?Ain't it a great bill?
Actually the constitution was written because private property was not respected. Try reading a history book instead of the cigarette labelBecause 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 heardI am a big fan of DeSantis and I like the spirit of the law, I'm just not sure of its constitutionality.Try reading DeSantis law.
Legally speaking, why shouldn't YouTube be permitted to ban content that it dislikes?
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.
It limits the speech of Facebook and Twitter who are required to publish speech they don’t want to.This bill does not limit speech, it allows for more speech. Something that irritates you.No really. I’m against bills that limit freedom of speech. Why do you support limiting freedom of speech? Not a fan of the constitution?Ain't it a great bill?
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.
