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

[my2¢]

Hopefuly in a few days after Facebook and/or Twitter lawyers have reviewed the matter we'll have a good fight to witness.

 

[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.

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?

Yeah, it's "free" but the consumers are still consumers, and their eyeballs are what social media sells. It's a contractual relationship. both provide value to each other.

 

[bripat9643]

So, when they are sued under this Florida law, they are being sued as a Content Provider, for purposes of Section 230, and therefore, Fed law is not preempting this state law.

Section 230 has nothing to do with this, as I’ve tried explaining to the other poster.

If section 230 didn’t exist, it would still be unconstitutional.

To the extent you or others were claiming federal preemption, I was responding.

As for being unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, it is a stretch to say Florida cannot provide a cause of action for civil liability for social media editing the speech of others in an inconsistent, unfair, or non-transparent manner. Social Media can hardly claim a free speech violation when they are not prohibited from removing content.

It’s not a stretch. For starters, they’re not editing the speech of others. Refusing to publish is not editing. If they were truly editing, then there’d be a point.

Deciding not to publish is a first amendment issue. You can’t claim damages for a decision not to publish when you have no right to it.

Yes they are editing the speech of others, dumbass. Refusing to publish some and not others is editing. You've been told this a thousand times. It's obvious you don't give a damn about the facts. You're dutifully repeating the talking points the party has given you.

Rule 230 says they do have a right to be published by youTube and Facebook, you fucking moron.

 

[postman]

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.

How about a hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktail for people to inject.

 

[bripat9643]

Hopefuly in a few days after Facebook and/or Twitter lawyers have reviewed the matter we'll have a good fight to witness.

Steven Crowder has already filed a $10 million lawsuit.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

How about a hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktail for people to inject.

The claim that Trump endorsed that is propaganda, asshole.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

How about a hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktail for people to inject.

Link to ANYONE recommending bleach cocktails, you ignorant fuck.

 

[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?

The people who publish videos are customers.

Nope. These companies don't make money from the people who post on their website. The "customers" in social media are ad companies. Users are the product.

They have contracts with these customers.

Well, if there's a contract being violated, I'm sure the lawyers can work that out.

Ask people who had channels if they were harmed when youTube refused to publish their content.

Liberals tend to have this conception of "harm" that basically claims that if someone won't do what you want (bake you a cake, post your crap on fb, etc...) they're "harming" you. That's specious.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s not a stretch. For starters, they’re not editing the speech of others. Refusing to publish is not editing.

"Refusing to publish" is editing content by ANY measure.

Define "editing content" in a way that excludes REMOVING content. I'll wait.

Deciding not to publish is a first amendment issue. You can’t claim damages for a decision not to publish when you have no right to it.

Deciding not to publish WHAT? Why?

Florida has a cause of action for REMOVING content in an unfair or non-transparent manner. It specially points to "bad-faith" actions in those decisions.

While social media can still remove the content or "refuse to publish" content, they will still pay the price. Government cannot restrain speech, but if you slander another, you will pay damages for that free speech.

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous. If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

Social media has a right to not to publish the shit posts or whatever content that is being taken down and has y’all so upset. There is no constitutional requirement that anyone’s speech be fair or transparent. 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.

You've already been proven wrong 1000 times, you fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous.

What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?

If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?

Fine. They are not editing (fucking bullshit but whatever). They can be held liable for "refusing to publish" if they do so in a way that is unfair or non-transparent.

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Who says they have to be fair?

They don't. Who says they can't pay for their unfair actions? NOBODY!!!

The Constitution says so. The Constitution grants them freedom of speech.

Rule 230 says they can't.

 

[bripat9643]

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous.

What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?

If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?

Fine. They are not editing (fucking bullshit but whatever). They can be held liable for "refusing to publish" if they do so in a way that is unfair or non-transparent.

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Who says they have to be fair?

Rule 230 does

 

[surada]

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.

Liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and those promoting violence shouldn't be given a venue regardless of their political affiliation.

Let them shout it to the heavens, but newspapeers won't give them creedence either.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope. These companies don't make money of the people who post on their website. The "customers" in social media are ad companies. Users are the product.

Bro....read what you just wrote AGAIN.

Well, if there's a contract being violated, I'm sure the lawyers can work that out.

Can they? Well, they can now. In Florida anyway.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

Twitter:
Penalties for "hate speech"

Twitter SELECTIVELY defines "hate speech"

Conservatives are ALWAYS hateful.

Twitter slowly weeds out conservative thought

Liberals posters: it's a business. You cant tell a business what's allowed on their platform.

Abuses of power leads to this law

 

[bripat9643]

good for him....FUCK the LYING, SCUM, demonRATS....
can't wait to hear those scum whine about this

LOL

Who's whining? I can't wait for him to try to fine a private company for flexing their Constitutionally provided First Amendment rights.

We'll see when it happens. I'll bet the Facebook won't dare to censor any politicians. They don't want to test the law and lose.

 

[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.

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

Liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and those promoting violence shouldn't be given a venue regardless of their political affiliation.

Let them shout it to the heavens, but newspapeers won't give them creedence either.

Fine, but social media must be UP FRONT about their monitoring policies.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I doubt a lawsuit could squeeze enough out of a small forum like this to even cover the cost of the attorney. All that is behind the mod power orgy on this site is a little Wizard of Oz.

"mod power orgy"? LMAO!! Yeah, we are all drunk with the extensive power we wield.

Not all the mods here are involved in it, thank God. It only takes 3 to make an orgy.

Yeah there’s a couple of good ones.

 

[surada]

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.

How about a hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktail for people to inject.

The claim that Trump endorsed that is propaganda, asshole.

LOLOL..Of course he did .. Look at his all night Tweet tantrums and his every day TV appearances. Look at his medical advice and his attacks on women.

 

[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.

Liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and those promoting violence shouldn't be given a venue regardless of their political affiliation.

Let them shout it to the heavens, but newspapeers won't give them creedence either.

We have a First Amendment that says otherwise. Slander has always been actionable. The rest is merely speech that Dim NAZIs such as you don't like.

Newspapers can be sued, moron. You've already been told that 1000 time.

 

[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.

Liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and those promoting violence shouldn't be given a venue regardless of their political affiliation.

Let them shout it to the heavens, but newspapeers won't give them creedence either.

Fine, but social media must be UP FRONT about their monitoring policies.

No, even that won't do it. If they are "upfront" and says they are going to censor conservatives, they are still opening themselves to a lawsuit.