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

[LA RAM FAN]

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

Amen to that.smoking op is one to.his constant neg repping on here on this thread

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

For example?

 

[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.

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

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.

Why would that matter? Either Trump is too stupid to understand their policies, or he's defiant and belligerent.. He had four years to clean up his act.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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

You nailed it,beautifully said

 

[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.

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

Who said they weren't or haven't been. Banning the Faithless GOP politicians isn't censorship. Forcing the media platforms to host their political views is.

A Brief History of YouTube Censorship

For as long as it has existed, YouTube has been under pressure from different governments to remove a wide range of content.

www.vice.com

 

[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.

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.

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.

Content providers are customers.

Lawsuits are one way lawyers "work things out." YouTube, Facebook and Twitter should prepare themselves for an onslaught of lawsuits.

 

[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.

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.

Why would that matter? Either Trump is too stupid to understand their policies, or he's defiant and belligerent.. He had four years to clean up his act.

"Clean up his act" means so what leftwingers want.

 

[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.

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.

I won't even bother to post a substantive reply to your lies.

 

[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.

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.

Its not about censoring conservatives.. Its about censoring liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and violent rhetoric.

 

[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

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.

Actually, I pointed out your views always serve Democrats. Democrats are collectivists, you claim to be an individual. Democrats want to maximize government, you claim to want to minimize it.

Yet your views somehow always alight with the polar opposite of what you claim to believe. And yes, Democrats see that, clearly. That you are totally aligned with them. That while libertarians see that you're not aligned with us

 

[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.

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

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.

Why would that matter? Either Trump is too stupid to understand their policies, or he's defiant and belligerent.. He had four years to clean up his act.

"Clean up his act" means so what leftwingers want.

loloL.. Of course you'd think that.

 

[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.

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.

Of course you're not "interested in the legal technicalities." The system is working for Democrats and against Republicans as it is. You're happy. Freeze it where it is

 

[dblack]

It's not a stretch to assume the CDC's bosses threatened social media and that is government using social media as a tool.

Do you have ANY evidence of such a threat? Is it a "stretch" to assume that FB merely agrees with the CDC?

Otherwise, what does social media have to gain by dutifully policing content the CDC claims is the decree of truth?

The same thing this site has to gain when they ban trolls. It cleans things up and makes for a better user experience.

 

[bripat9643]

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."

Ahh.. so they can do what they want except that they can't. Makes a lot of sense. Do you want government to run everything in society? Or just social media?

So you want to abolish Rule 230?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a stretch to assume the CDC's bosses threatened social media and that is government using social media as a tool.

Do you have ANY evidence of such a threat? Is it a "stretch" to assume that FB merely agrees with the CDC?

Otherwise, what does social media have to gain by dutifully policing content the CDC claims is the decree of truth?

The same thing this site has to gain when they ban trolls. It cleans things up and makes for a better user experience.

No, it's not a stretch to ssume that FB merely agrees with the CDC. It's not even an assumption.

 

[dblack]

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.

That's not what 230 says.

 

[my2¢]

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.

Seems like a gift lawsuit to whoever he is suing. I'll go with Crowder not getting even a dime.

 

[surada]

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.

Of course you're not "interested in the legal technicalities." The system is working for Democrats and against Republicans as it is. You're happy. Freeze it where it is

Trump has LOST most of his 4,000 lawsuits over the years and stiffs his lawyers.. He'll never get top tier legal representation. Just like US banks won't touch him.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Only if they function as a "common carrier." They aren't doing that when they censor content because they disagree with it.

 

[Winston]

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?

Who said they weren't or haven't been. Banning the Faithless GOP politicians isn't censorship. Forcing the media platforms to host their political views is.

A Brief History of YouTube Censorship

For as long as it has existed, YouTube has been under pressure from different governments to remove a wide range of content.

www.vice.com

You are exactly right. These social media platforms are private companies. Just like a private company can kick out a Karen that refuses to wear a mask, a private company can ban an individual spouting damn near anything that private company is against. It always amazes me how Trumpsters in particular, and those on the right in general, are more than willing to abandon their principles concerning the rights of individuals and private companies, when and if it serves their purpose. If a private company, for religious reasons, can refuse to provide birth control coverage for their employees, then a private company, for whatever damn reason, can refuse to broadcast racism, calls to violence, or obvious falsehoods. This law has no way of surviving a court challenge, and rest assured, Facebook and the rest will seek to adjudicate this law at the first opportunity.