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

[dblack]

Let Freedom Ring ....

Down with all who HATE the US Constitution.

I don't think we need to "put them down", but we do need to stop letting them use government to bully others.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Social media, by publishing content, is an exercise of speech. Saying they have a right but will “pay a price” is a contradiction. If you pay a price, that’s not a right.

So, you are against all defamation laws or for that matter any law that requires one to pay for a "license" to exercise the right to arms?

Actually defamation laws have been whittled away significantly over the centuries.

Defamation is a balance between the right to protect your good name and free speech. Over time, courts have out more and more emphasis on free speech.

What is so different here is that this is a law that is attempting to compel speech.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are fucking commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

Show me.

It fines them if they fail to comply with the law. That's compelling.

Show me. You haven't looked at it, have you?

It is essentially a campaign finance TAX for providing a BENEFIT to one political candidate and not the other.

"Essentially"

LOLOL

It's a fine for banning politicians for more than 14 days.

Sorry, the government can't tell them who can or cannot be members as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class -- and politician is not a protected class.

See above about your credibility. I'll just consider this topic OVER.

But, I am amazed that none of you opponents of this bill have raised a 5th Amendment argument on the politician mandatory platforming. I'm not saying it will be successful, because accounts are free, but it is a much more valid argument than a 1st Amendment argument.

 

[kaz]

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.

They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.

LOL, talk about pissy.

This is the point, you in theory think this or that should be changed, but it has no effect on your partisan Democrat view that things are working pretty good for Democrats and you're happy as punch about it.

And splitting hairs that they are exempt from some lawsuits but not others. You know what I meant, you just love Democrats. And they love you back, one after another says so

 

[Faun]

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

So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?

Forums like this that violate the law will be subject to legal scrutiny.

There will be no legal scrutiny. Not on this site, not on any other.

Denial is always the first reaction.

I'm looking forward to my celebration at watching the Judicary dismantle that infringement of the First Amendment.

There is no first Amendment, or second so dismantling something that is not real is not possible

^^^ Delusional.

Yes, the Constitution is real. Very real. And it's the foundation this nation is built upon.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Lies and slander are already illegal. What you mean by "fake medical advice" is anything that contradicts Democrat Reich propaganda. Contradicting government propaganda is one of the main reasons we have a First Amendment, asshole.

 

[BlindBoo]

The totalitarians demand their BIGLIE be given equal access.

They say fuck the First Amendment, you will obey or pay!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.

They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.

All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.

The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So, what is the constitutional argument here?

Social media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.

They don't have a constitutional right to avoid liability.

If anything is unconstitutional, it's rule 230.

 

[dblack]

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.

They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.

LOL, talk about pissy.

This is the point, you in theory think this or that should be changed, but it has no effect on your partisan Democrat view that things are working pretty good for Democrats and you're happy as punch about it.

And splitting hairs that they are exempt from some lawsuits but not others. You know what I meant, you just love Democrats. And they love you back, one after another says so

It's funny - every time I point out how empty and hypocritical your arguments are, you fall back on the "you're a Democrat" shrieking. I guess it's a handy diversion.

 

[EvMetro]

Who canceled Parlor's hosting? The original Parlor is gone now, and has been replaced with site that complies with lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.

I just went to their site and it's still there. Never joined up, but from what I understand, they don't take political sides. Liberals and conservatives have the ability to post virtually anything they want.

The original site is gone now. It has been replaced with a site that looks similar, but it complies to lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

So, what is the constitutional argument here?

Social media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.

They don't have a constitutional right to avoid liability.

If anything is unconstitutional, it's rule 230.

Yes, but dblack's point is well taken. It will change nothing.

 

[dblack]

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.

They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.

All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.

The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.

I'm not particularly interested in the legal technicalities. It's the overarching goal that bothers me. Government shouldn't be dictating to media companies. Period.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Since the youTube vendors created businesses based on the ability to broadcast the products on youTube, declining to broadcast them causes serious financial harm to the vendor, so why shouldn't they be allowed to sue?

 

[bripat9643]

The totalitarians demand their BIGLIE be given equal access.

They say fuck the First Amendment, you will obey or pay!

You're the totalitarian, NAZI. You're perfectly happy with censorship of your political opponents.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.

They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.

All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.

The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.

I'm not particularly interested in the legal technicalities. It's the overarching goal that bothers me. Government shouldn't be dictating to media companies. Period.

I agree, but that is exactly what they are doing. Social media is being used as a tool.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It doesn't have a constitutional right to fuck over its customers.

 

[Circe]

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.

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

He is the greatest governor in history. I hope they all sue for 200 billion. Fauci says cuomo is the greatest governor because he killed so many elderly. I cant agree.

DeSantis for President! I don't think Trump will run (I could be wrong!) and DeSantis could make a great prez.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The idea that you actually give a damn about the constitution doesn't pass the laugh test.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Horseshit. Rule 230 is not constitutional.

 

[bripat9643]

ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.

It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.

This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.

That part may be unconstitutional, but the rest of it is perfectly in compliance. It restores a right we always had.