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

[colfax_m]

HB7072 gives Floridians a cause of action for social media's unfair content moderation or lack of transparency in their content moderation policies.

That actions interferes with the first amendment rights of websites to chose when and what to publish.

 

[colfax_m]

Then, they are not an interactive computer service, and therefore are not entitled to protection. They are information content providers.

That’s not true. Look at the definition.

3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

Facebook and Twitter, by taking down content, choosing not to punish it, are in no way creating or developing the information.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

HB7072 gives Floridians a cause of action for social media's unfair content moderation or lack of transparency in their content moderation policies.

That actions interferes with the first amendment rights of websites to chose when and what to publish.

No it doesn't.

Just like defamation laws do not interfere with one's right to speak. All they do is provide recourse for those damaged by that speech.

This law simply provides recourse for any lack of transparency or unfair treatment by social media.

 

[Dusty]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

Ain't it a great bill?

No, it isn't. It tries to meddle in the affairs of a private entity.

Nothing new there as the government already restricts what you can say. Try posting military plans here, or the video of Hunter Biden jerking off his own cock on the White House web page

So you agree with limitations or regulations on constitutional rights?

When constitutional rights allow for idiots to get elected and rewrite the constitution then the constitution is a farce.

See you actually have no rights, you never did or do. This is what the people of color figured out and they are technically correct

So you think an individual can rewrite the US Constitution?

Amazon product ASIN 1933995068
Actually I know that changes to the constitution happen too frequently and that they are called amendments, and that an amendment saying that no internet post can be made by any individual without government approval is possible. So as I said the constitution has no meaning. Gun owners have the right to own the gun that the government allows, so they have no right to bear arms of their choice. Almost never did as the constitution became nothing soon after being written

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then, they are not an interactive computer service, and therefore are not entitled to protection. They are information content providers.

That’s not true. Look at the definition.

3)Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

Facebook and Twitter, by taking down content, choosing not to punish it, are in no way creating or developing the information.

I don't think you're gonna win on the issue of whether or not they're developing content. Development includes choosing what not to publish as well as what to publish.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That’s not true. Look at the definition.

See above. You look at the definition. Any person or entity responsible in whole or in part for the development of contact.

I have chosen what to write in this message and what not to write. If someone else comes in and chooses what not to write for me, that is developing continent.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If somebody publishes on Facebook their opinions on whether the COVID vaccines are safe, and Facebook decides that the content is "false" and removes it, no reasonable person can sit here and claim that Facebook is NOT developing content.

 

[colfax_m]

HB7072 gives Floridians a cause of action for social media's unfair content moderation or lack of transparency in their content moderation policies.

That actions interferes with the first amendment rights of websites to chose when and what to publish.

No it doesn't.

Just like defamation laws do not interfere with one's right to speak. All they do is provide recourse for those damaged by that speech.

This law simply provides recourse for any lack of transparency or unfair treatment by social media.

For starters, you are not entitled to free treatment.

You are making it so that you can claim damages for the lack of speech which is totally unconstitutional. I can’t claim that I was hurt because you chose not to say that I’m super smart.

 

[WTF19]

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.

​

Trump needs money again?

enjoy your TRUMP orgasm, shit stain

LOL, it's funny watching how upset you assholes get if anyone says anything even slightly negative about that pathetic loser.

You all are worse than teenage groupies.

upset?..... no....laughing, yes... you are the retards, demonRATS, that continuously bring TRUMP into the conversation....that makes you a delusional moron
enjoy your TRUMP orgasm, shit stain

 

[WTF19]

HB7072 gives Floridians a cause of action for social media's unfair content moderation or lack of transparency in their content moderation policies.

That actions interferes with the first amendment rights of websites to chose when and what to publish.

No it doesn't.

Just like defamation laws do not interfere with one's right to speak. All they do is provide recourse for those damaged by that speech.

This law simply provides recourse for any lack of transparency or unfair treatment by social media.

For starters, you are not entitled to free treatment.

You are making it so that you can claim damages for the lack of speech which is totally unconstitutional. I can’t claim that I was hurt because you chose not to say that I’m super smart.

i can't see anyone making that comment....ever

 

[colfax_m]

If somebody publishes on Facebook their opinions on whether the COVID vaccines are safe, and Facebook decides that the content is "false" and removes it, no reasonable person can sit here and claim that Facebook is NOT developing content.

Ah I see the confusion.

Facebook is actually both at different times. They develop their own content but they don’t develop the content others submit. That’s always been true.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

Ain't it a great bill?

No, it isn't. It tries to meddle in the affairs of a private entity.

Nothing new there as the government already restricts what you can say. Try posting military plans here, or the video of Hunter Biden jerking off his own cock on the White House web page

So you agree with limitations or regulations on constitutional rights?

When constitutional rights allow for idiots to get elected and rewrite the constitution then the constitution is a farce.

See you actually have no rights, you never did or do. This is what the people of color figured out and they are technically correct

So you think an individual can rewrite the US Constitution?

Amazon product ASIN 1933995068
Actually I know that changes to the constitution happen too frequently and that they are called amendments, and that an amendment saying that no internet post can be made by any individual without government approval is possible. So as I said the constitution has no meaning. Gun owners have the right to own the gun that the government allows, so they have no right to bear arms of their choice. Almost never did as the constitution became nothing soon after being written

In 232 years there have been only 27 amendments. That is hardly "too frequently".

But please tell us, which of the 27 amendments would you remove if you could?

 

[colfax_m]

I have chosen what to write in this message and what not to write. If someone else comes in and chooses what not to write for me, that is developing continent.

If someone were to come in and change your post by removing content, you’d have a point. But that’s not happening.

Choosing not to propagate your message is not developing anything. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For starters, you are not entitled to free treatment.

The Florida law says otherwise.

You are making it so that you can claim damages for the lack of speech which is totally unconstitutional.

That is not what this Florida law is doing. It gives Floridians a cause of action if social media has not acted in good faith and been transparent about content moderation. Social media still has the right to exclude content, but it may be liable for damages resulting from such action if it acts arbitrarily or without transparency.

I can’t claim that I was hurt because you chose not to say that I’m super smart.

You can claim that you were hurt under this law if I chose to remove your statement that you're super smart, but let Bobby Joe Cleatus say he is super smart.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If someone were to come in and change your post by removing content, you’d have a point. But that’s not happening.

Spin that.

 

[John T. Ford]

When constitutional rights allow for idiots to get elected and rewrite the constitution then the constitution is a farce.

See you actually have no rights, you never did or do. This is what the people of color figured out and they are technically correct

That is a ridiculous statement.

Please give an example of where these said "idiots" have rewritten the US Constitution.

 

[colfax_m]

The Florida law says otherwise.

The constitution says otherwise.

That is not what this Florida law is doing. It gives Floridians a cause of action if social media has not acted in good faith and been transparent about content moderation. Social media still has the right to exclude content, but it may be liable for damages resulting from such action if it acts arbitrarily or without transparency.

It’s exactly what the law is doing. There cannot be liability for Facebook not speaking when it has no obligation to do so.

You can claim that you were hurt under this law if I chose to remove your statement that you're super smart, but let Bobby Joe Cleatus say he is super smart.

Which is unconstitutional. I have a freedom of speech and choosing to say one thing and not another cannot produce damages.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It’s exactly what the law is doing. There cannot be liability for Facebook not speaking when it has no obligation to do so.

So, who is speaking? Facebook or the user? Make up your fucking mind.

Which is unconstitutional. I have a freedom of speech and choosing to say one thing and not another cannot produce damages.

What about defamation?

And AGAIN, YOU are the one choosing what to speak. YOU are the content provider. So, which is it?

 

[colfax_m]

It’s exactly what the law is doing. There cannot be liability for Facebook not speaking when it has no obligation to do so.

So, who is speaking? Facebook or the user? Make up your fucking mind.

Which is unconstitutional. I have a freedom of speech and choosing to say one thing and not another cannot produce damages.

What about defamation?

And AGAIN, YOU are the one choosing what to speak. YOU are the content provider. So, which is it?

By publishing the content on their website, Facebook is doing the speaking also.

Publishing is an exercise of speech. Choosing not to publish is also an exercise of speech.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It’s exactly what the law is doing. There cannot be liability for Facebook not speaking when it has no obligation to do so.

So, who is speaking? Facebook or the user? Make up your fucking mind.

Which is unconstitutional. I have a freedom of speech and choosing to say one thing and not another cannot produce damages.

What about defamation?

And AGAIN, YOU are the one choosing what to speak. YOU are the content provider. So, which is it?

By publishing the content on their website, Facebook is doing the speaking also.

Publishing is an exercise of speech. Choosing not to publish is also an exercise of speech.

So, Facebook is not an "Interactive Computer Service" but an "Information Content Provider" for purposes of Section 230?