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

[Circe]

I understand the motive but this new Florida law is unconstitutional and will probably be struck down very quickly.

I think the central question is becoming whether Facebook et al. IS a private company ---- or is a utility.

I think it has quickly become a public utility and should be regulated as such: i.e., no more of their terrible restriction of free speech.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

If you actually gave a damn about the Constitution, you wouldn't be a leftwinger endorsing censorship.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

If it is, it is only because such is a 5th Amendment "taking" but that's a hard sell too, because accounts are free and cost practically nothing per user.

So, government pays facebook $0.25 per politician account in Florida. Done.

 

[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.

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

All media can be used as a "tool". What exactly are you claiming? And why does it justify laws that dictate to social media?

 

[Faun]

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.

You blow pretty much all your credibility with "It's different when we do it" bit at the end.

It's reality. The government can impose restrictions on private companies based on discrimination of protected classes. It's also real that politician is not a protected class.

 

[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.

You complaints have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are merely defending the ability of the left to censor conservatives, you fucking NAZI.

 

[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

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.

This nation has already been taken over by socialist and you are one of them

 

[bripat9643]

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.

You blow pretty much all your credibility with "It's different when we do it" bit at the end.

It's reality. The government can impose restrictions on private companies based on discrimination of protected classes. It's also real that politician is not a protected class.

The Tech giants are editing their content. Therefore, they are not protected by rule 230.

 

[dblack]

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.

How are they fucking over their customers? Do you even understand who the "customers" are at a free social media site?

 

[Circe]

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

All normal thinking Americans understand that there is a difference between small private owned forums and big tech.

No, there isn't. That's the problem. Facebook is acting like any small forum set up by one or a few people. But it has become the default normal mode of communication for nearly everyone, thus it acts like a public utility, like Ma Bell used to be.

By the way, pretty awful to say "all normal thinking Americans understand" what YOUR particular biased point of view is. SSHHHHeeeeeeeesh. That's trying to foreclose the whole question to a predetermined answer for everyone.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They sure as hell. By picking and choosing which content to publish they are performing an editorial function.

 

[Circe]

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 YouTube has become another utility. The Internet ------- cyberspace sure happened fast. The big search engines are really public utilities, too, I'd say, so biasing their search answers should not be happening. Yeah, right.

 

[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.

How are they fucking over their customers? Do you even understand who the "customers" are at a free social media site?

The people who publish videos are customers. They have contracts with these customers. By refusing to publish their videos, they are harming them. Ask people who had channels if they were harmed when youTube refused to publish their content.

 

[22lcidw]

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.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

Separate the nation. Be what you are. Lots of land for people to be what they are. This will not be for many more decades. The western world will be like the rest of the world and wars will be normal. Enjoy the times left.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Faux News is still on the air. BrietPhart is still on the web along with that Nasty Alex Jones Turd and his shit eating Web Site. Along with countless other Fascist supporting media/news sites.

 

[Circe]

What if a user is censored despite not having broken the TOS?

There is nothing you can really do about that. I had one mod constantly lock my posts, move them to some other forum, or otherwise F with me. My choice is to leave here and go somewhere else, or just put up with it. Instead, I sent a complaint to USMB about the problem. They never replied (they never do) but it seemed to help matters. It could be they contacted the mod (I won't give the name) or it was coincidence.

I'm one of the few people here that donate money to this service so perhaps that helped as well, I don't know. Now that I'm thinking of it, I need to send them money for this year. Why not, I'm here quite a bit anyhow.

Thanks for your useful post. The best moderators are the least active, IMO.

 

[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.

All media can be used as a "tool". What exactly are you claiming? And why does it justify laws that dictate to social media?

When, for example, say, just for argument's sake, that the CDC lied about the "science" behind COVID and people question it on social media. Then, suddenly, social media starts censoring anything that disagrees with the CDC. It's not a stretch to assume the CDC's bosses threatened social media and that is government using social media as a tool. Otherwise, what does social media have to gain by dutifully policing content the CDC claims is the decree of truth?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sure you can, when you pretend that you are a platform and then behave as if you are a publisher. Furthermore, you are violating rule 230

Of course, we all know the real reason you oppose this law is that you are a fucking NAZI who likes having the opposition censored and doesn't give a damn about freedom of speech.

 

[John T. Ford]

No, there isn't. That's the problem. Facebook is acting like any small forum set up by one or a few people. But it has become the default normal mode of communication for nearly everyone, thus it acts like a public utility, like Ma Bell used to be.

By the way, pretty awful to say "all normal thinking Americans understand" what YOUR particular biased point of view is. SSHHHHeeeeeeeesh. That's trying to foreclose the whole question to a predetermined answer for everyone.

It's not bias.

Read DeSantis' law.

They have to prove damage 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.

Faux News is still on the air. BrietPhart is still on the web along with that Nasty Alex Jones Turd and his shit eating Web Site. Along with countless other Fascist supporting media/news sites.

So? How does that prove the youTube and Facebook aren't censoring?