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

[dblack]

Cool - so if create a sock here, and claim I'm from Florida, I can't be banned! Troll on!

 

[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.

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

Bullshit. You believe conservatives are nothing more than liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and violent rhetoric. Everyone who ever censored anyone used that same excuse, including Hitler and Stalin.

 

[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?

Yep. It's just one of those convenience laws. Removing it will shake things up for a little while. It will fucker smaller websites (like this one) that don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal. But in the end, precedents will be set, EULA's will be massaged, and life will go on. Removing 230 won't be the silver bullet you're hoping. It won't harm FB and Twitter.

All Desantis is doing is disabling rule 230. So how can you attack Desantis when you claim to oppose Rule 230?

The law prohibiting them from suspending political candidates has exactly nothing to do with 230 and is a radical abuse of state power.

The rule allowing people to sue Big tech companies has everything to do with Rule 230, asshat.

Sorry.. you're too stupid to competently discuss the issue.

Sorry, but you have proven yourself to be a fucking moron.

 

[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.

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

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

 

[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.

loloL.. Of course you'd think that.

I think it because it's true.

 

[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.

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

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

Back to the shrieking.

Do what you're good at!

 

[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.

That's not what 230 says.

Yes it does, asshole. What do you imagine the term "common carrier" means?

 

[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.

What a load of crap, your typical fare. Doesn't the smell bother you?

Challenge the facts, dearie.. Why do you think Wilbur Ross of the Bank of Cyrus (Russian money) became Secretary of Commerce? LOL

 

[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.

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

Back to the shrieking.

Do what you're good at!

Lying and pretending to be a libertarian is what you're good at. I take that back. You aren't good at it, but you do it all the time.

 

[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.

Not according to Rule 230, moron.

I love the way all you Komrades suddenly decided you worship the free market. We all know it's a con.

I believe you misunderstand Rule 230. It does not require media companies to accept anything. It merely states those companies can not be held liable for the postings of members. You want to revoke that rule I am on board. When Gateway Pundit posts stupid, totally false statements like they have concerning the Arizona recount, they should be held accountable.

 

[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.

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

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

Back to the shrieking.

Do what you're good at!

So answer a serious question. Do you think Democrats are open to arguments and people they disagree with? Is that something you observe on the board?

 

[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

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.

What a load of crap, your typical fare. Doesn't the smell bother you?

Challenge the facts, dearie.. Why do you think Wilbur Ross of the Bank of Cyrus (Russian money) became Secretary of Commerce? LOL

I don't need to challenge facts you made up.

I have no opinion of Wilbur Ross either way. What do your Democrat conspiracy sites say about him? That he's a lizard creature from another galaxy?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Their terms of service violate rule 230.

Not really

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[surada]

I'm here to discuss this thread topic and how unconstitutional DeSantis' law is.

Well, when are you going to start discussing it?

What is the basis of your unconstitutionality claim? Give specifics.

Already said. It's government overreach into the privates' Constitutionally provided First Amendment rights.

And it only benefits one person in a state of more than 22 million... Donald Trump.

Qit pretending you give a damn about the First Amendment. You support government protected censorship. That much is clear.

All the ACLU does is defend the Billl of Rights..

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution | American ...

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[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.

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

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

Back to the shrieking.

Do what you're good at!

So answer a serious question. Do you think Democrats are open to arguments and people they disagree with? Is that something you observe on the board?

Most aren't. What's your point?

 

[Winston]

Should people be able to buy ads for one candidate without recognizing it as a contribution to that candidate? If so, why should companies be able to provide direct political benefits without recognizing that as a contribution?

You never addressed his point

Yeah, I don't really care. That kind of campaign finance regulation is just another way for the state to suppress dissent. People and companies should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns however the like.

Of course you don't care. If you read your posts, every argument is literally based on this. When the current system works for Democrats, you throw out some libertarian sounding BS justifying the current system. You only want it changed if it isn't working for Democrats, then you throw out libertarian sounding BS to justify "fixing" it ... for Democrats.

Every argument you make follows that logic.

EVERYONE sees that, which is why Democrats love you and everyone else doesn't. The only person who doesn't see your crap for what it is would be you

Quit being stupid. It is the Republicans that are the moral relativists. For instance, it is perfectly fine for a company, like say "My Pillow", to step into the political arena and broadcasts their beliefs. But damn first time a company stands up against, say the Georgia election law, you got Republicans like Ted Cruz threatening to punish them. That is hypocritical. Just like this bullshit from little boy DeSantis. Because make no mistake about it, he is a tiny little boy. He wants to force media companies, especially social media, to air his bullshit. But first time someone starts broadcasting about his tiny little pecker he will be screaming for censorship. You Trumpsters have no morals, ZIPPO. You stand for absolutely nothing, your ethics are as fluid as a overflowing river. It would be sad really, if it were so damn dangerous. You have not made America Great again, you have made America a damn cesspool, and you are more than willing to wallow around in that shit like a pig, regardless of how much you stink up the place.

 

[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.

What a load of crap, your typical fare. Doesn't the smell bother you?

Challenge the facts, dearie.. Why do you think Wilbur Ross of the Bank of Cyrus (Russian money) became Secretary of Commerce? LOL

I don't need to challenge facts you made up.

I have no opinion of Wilbur Ross either way. What do your Democrat conspiracy sites say about him? That he's a lizard creature from another galaxy?

Blind denial. Keep it up..

 

[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.

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

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

Back to the shrieking.

Do what you're good at!

Lying and pretending to be a libertarian is what you're good at. I take that back. You aren't good at it, but you do it all the time.

Bingo. That is exactly what stands out. That dblack is with the Democrats EVERY TIME.

Democrats also have zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them on every subject and they LOVE HIM. Democrats love a guy who stands for small government. That just never happens.

And yet libertarian and leftist are polar opposites

 

[kaz]

What a load of crap, your typical fare. Doesn't the smell bother you?

Challenge the facts, dearie.. Why do you think Wilbur Ross of the Bank of Cyrus (Russian money) became Secretary of Commerce? LOL

I don't need to challenge facts you made up.

I have no opinion of Wilbur Ross either way. What do your Democrat conspiracy sites say about him? That he's a lizard creature from another galaxy?

Blind denial. Keep it up..

That's just stupid. I don't have to pursue your conspiracy theories

 

[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.

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

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

He's saying the system works for Democrats. He's good

Back to the shrieking.

Do what you're good at!

Lying and pretending to be a libertarian is what you're good at. I take that back. You aren't good at it, but you do it all the time.

Bingo. That is exactly what stands out. That dblack is with the Democrats EVERY TIME.

Democrats also have zero tolerance for anyone who disagrees with them on every subject and they LOVE HIM. Democrats love a guy who stands for small government. That just never happens.

And yet libertarian and leftist are polar opposites

I just don't give a shit what you choose to label me, that's all.