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

[colfax_m]

Restricting Facebook from censoring speech is not censoring Facebooks speech. It’s prohibiting an Action.

Yes. Restricting Facebook from deciding what it will and won’t publish limits their free speech rights.

Prohibiting an exercise of speech is restricting it.

 

[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.

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.

Sure you do, that's why you go around telling people that you're a libertarian, and all the libertarians say "no you aren't."

Listen - labels aside, just know that I'm opposed to your bullshit. Whatever it is you are thinking of when you call yourself a "libertarian", has nothing to do with the word as I know it. Frankly, I think you're just really dumb and incapable of understanding the core ideas of libertarian ideology. I'm sure you see it differently, and that's ok. As long as we're clear we're on opposite sides.

You don't know what the word means, or you're just a lying douchebag who deliberately uses it incorrectly.

 

[dblack]

Is anyone on the site from FLA? If you are, congratulations. You can't be banned!

 

[bripat9643]

Yes they are editing the speech of others, dumbass. Refusing to publish some and not others is editing.

Nope. Not editing. Doesn’t matter anyway. Not publishing is protected by the first amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

This isn’t about free speech. It’s about government forcing industry to serve the interests of a political party.

Which is, wait for it, a little fascist.

They are not forcing anything except requiring them to platform all political candidates. All this does is provide for civil liability.

It just requires social media to be transparent or pay damages.

 

[toobfreak]

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.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, everyone knows all that, WB. What DeSantis is hopefully trying to achieve, is clearly defined rules with boundaries that must be applied to ALL people equally, rather than just singling out those conservative factions that FB or Twitter may not like or agree with. I think he is trying to pin things down better so as to be able to differentiate DISCRIMINATION, applying rules or a different set of rules for one group of people and not others.

More difficult is the fact that while the 1stA holds true for the government, unfortunately what the founders could not have envisioned is a close partnership between government and industry to where increasingly more and more, there is now a gray line between the two. Unfortunately, I've heard of a number of cases where now, the government is hiring and using private contractors to do just that: silence or otherwise attack or control groups and individuals it wishes to target as an end-around the constitutional limitations.

 

[WEATHER53]

Restricting Facebook from censoring speech is not censoring Facebooks speech. It’s prohibiting an Action.

Yes. Restricting Facebook from deciding what it will and won’t publish limits their free speech rights.

Prohibiting an exercise of speech is restricting it.

It’s not an exercise of speech. It’s an administrative action
We know you all are desperate to have opposing views not reach your eyes nor ears. That’s where safe spaces came from. Having crawled into your shell you will naturally support actions which assist that. Throwing a baseball is not speech, it’s an action. Undisclosed removing of certain views experiences and opinions is plain pure and simple illegal target directed censorship

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, everyone knows all that, WB. What DeSantis is hopefully trying to achieve, is clearly defined rules with boundaries that must be applied to ALL people equally, rather than just singling out those conservative factions that FB or Twitter may not like or agree with. I think he is trying to pin things down better so as to be able to differentiate DISCRIMINATION, applying rules or a different set of rules for one group of people and not others.

More difficult is the fact that while the 1stA holds true for the government, unfortunately what the founders could not have envisioned is a close partnership between government and industry to where increasingly more and more, there is now a gray line between the two. Unfortunately, I've heard of a number of cases where now, the government is hiring and using private contractors to do just that: sinlence or otherwise attack or control groups and individuals it wishes to target as an end-around the constitutional limitations.

Absolutely and perfectly stated and fact based

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I think searching the web is a different category than what's happening on Twitter and Facebook. A lot of people don't know that Google rigs their search results to bring up the liberal links on top. It's expected by people that the engine will bring up the most popular or most relevant links first.

With Twitter and Facebook, what they consider hate, lies, or anything else is subjective. It depends on who your post was sent to for examination and decision. Google is a deliberate act.

I'm an administrator for one of our local groups on Facebook. What I might think is a violation of the group rules, the founder of the group may think not, or another administrator might think not.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

 

[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.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.

Facebook

www.facebook.com

The terms are illegal. Communications law does not allow them to censor for anything that isn't illegal.

 

[Winston]

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.

This isn’t about free speech. It’s about government forcing industry to serve the interests of a political party.

Which is, wait for it, a little fascist.

They are not forcing anything except requiring them to platform all political candidates. All this does is provide for civil liability.

It just requires social media to be transparent or pay damages.

Wait a minute. There used to be something called equal time, or what was called the fairness doctrine. It required media companies to provide equal time to matters that involved the public's interest, including political candidates. You know who eliminated that provision? The Reagan administration. So piss off. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wrong

Social media companies aren’t common carriers, dumb ass.

You sure about that?

USC - Common Carrier

any person engaged as a common carrier for hire, in interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio or interstate or foreign radio transmission of energy, except where reference is made to common carriers not subject to this chapter

Sounds pretty broad to me.

 

[colfax_m]

It’s not an exercise of speech. It’s an administrative action

Wrong. Publishing is speech. It can’t be any other thing. Courts have held this over and over.

 

[kaz]

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.

Sure you do, that's why you go around telling people that you're a libertarian, and all the libertarians say "no you aren't."

Listen - labels aside, just know that I'm opposed to your bullshit. Whatever it is you are thinking of when you call yourself a "libertarian", has nothing to do with the word as I know it. Frankly, I think you're just really dumb and incapable of understanding the core ideas of libertarian ideology. I'm sure you see it differently, and that's ok. As long as we're clear we're on opposite sides.

It's pretty funny how someone who thinks he's a libertarian and is consistently on the side of socialists thinks we don't really know what libertarian means. That's classic

Like I said - whatever it is you mean by "libertarian", I ain't it. So, I think we're on the same page!

Yes, agreed. By libertarian I mean small government, that clearly isn't what you mean

 

[colfax_m]

Is anyone on the site from FLA? If you are, congratulations. You can't be banned!

The bill only applies to huge social media platforms, like ones with 100 million users.

Oh, and it exempts anyone running a theme park because Florida government is basically that corrupt.

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s not an exercise of speech. It’s an administrative action

Wrong. Publishing is speech. It can’t be any other thing. Courts have held this over and over.

They maintain they aren’t publishers

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sure you do, that's why you go around telling people that you're a libertarian, and all the libertarians say "no you aren't."

Listen - labels aside, just know that I'm opposed to your bullshit. Whatever it is you are thinking of when you call yourself a "libertarian", has nothing to do with the word as I know it. Frankly, I think you're just really dumb and incapable of understanding the core ideas of libertarian ideology. I'm sure you see it differently, and that's ok. As long as we're clear we're on opposite sides.

It's pretty funny how someone who thinks he's a libertarian and is consistently on the side of socialists thinks we don't really know what libertarian means. That's classic

Like I said - whatever it is you mean by "libertarian", I ain't it. So, I think we're on the same page!

Yes, agreed. By libertarian I mean small government, that clearly isn't what you mean

he seems to mean some form of NAZI Stalinist.

 

[Dusty]

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.

Do you not believe that people deserve the truth

Restricting Facebook from censoring speech is not censoring Facebooks speech. It’s prohibiting an Action.

Yes. Restricting Facebook from deciding what it will and won’t publish limits their free speech rights.

Prohibiting an exercise of speech is restricting it.

Facebook will not be stopped from publishing what they choose. they will be liable for their lies

It will happen unless the ACP takes full power

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's all this law requires, other than requiring them to platform political candidates.

LOL - other than that.

I already said there may be a "takings" argument under the 5th Amendment.

There is ZERO limit on social media's free speech. ZERO!!!

They simply have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in application of their moderation and if they don't they can be sued and pay damages.

Example: "we will delete anything critical of Communist China." Then, when they ban Steven Crowder, he has no recourse. But, if he sues and through discovery that others criticizing Commie China were NOT banned, he has a cause of action.