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

[bripat9643]

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.

The Fairness Doctrine did not required networks to give equal time to opposing views. Just opposing views,

However it was still a weapon .

https://www.cato.org/blog/internet-regulation-fairness

This isn't the fairness doctrine, moron.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They do business in Florida. Leftists just constantly make shit up

The tech companies are not based in Florida. They are not subject to Florida laws.

LOL, making up your shit again.

DOING BUSINESS in a state subjects you to it's laws, not just being based there.

You are yet again just completely full of shit

Where a company is based matters. They would have to sue in federal court. It will then be declared unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't, and no, they wouldn't. I work for a company whose clients are exclusively lawyers, and the cases we work on for them routinely include multi-state companies who are being sued in the court systems of states other than the one they're headquartered in.

But thanks for sharing what you "know" about the law based on the assumptions you made in the last five minutes, Clarence Darrow. We'll be sure to treat them with all the respect they deserve.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

This has NOTHING to do with equal time or even allowing equal content.

Facebook could ban any GOP or right-wing content universally. Facebook just has to be transparent about what facebook will ban and apply it consistently or pay damages.

No, that's still a violation of rule 230. That's still editing. It's just announcing that you're editing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Oh, yeah, Republicans are all about banning people with dissenting opinions from the social media conglomerates they control . . . oh, wait, that's not what's happening.

I can't wait to hear what asinine, piddly little kvetch you're going to produce and tell us is a FAR graver threat to free speech than social media censorship. I have no doubt it will cause us to laugh uproariously at you as we almost always do.

 

[bripat9643]

You never say what things are but only that the poster is dumb and wrong

I believe I’ve said repeatedly that Facebook is a published.

But you still believe it should be immune from lawsuits under rule 230. You can't have it both ways. All publishers can be sued.

 

[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.

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.

This has NOTHING to do with equal time or even allowing equal content.

Facebook could ban any GOP or right-wing content universally. Facebook just has to be transparent about what facebook will ban and apply it consistently or pay damages.

No, that's still a violation of rule 230. That's still editing. It's just announcing that you're editing.

It may be a violation of 230, but I was specifically talking about the Florida law. There is nothing unconstitutional about providing for civil liability for failure to disclose or inconsistent moderation.

 

[skews13]

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.

​

Wait until he finds out he has no such powers. Now Facebook, Twitter, and all of the other major platforms need to block all Florida IP addresses. The entertainment value will be to much.

 

[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.

Oh, yeah, Republicans are all about banning people with dissenting opinions from the social media conglomerates they control . . . oh, wait, that's not what's happening.

I can't wait to hear what asinine, piddly little kvetch you're going to produce and tell us is a FAR graver threat to free speech than social media censorship. I have no doubt it will cause us to laugh uproariously at you as we almost always do.

I bust out laughing when they start proclaiming their worship of the First Amendment and the free market.

 

[WTF19]

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.

and lets not forget the groping of little girls by beijing xiden

 

[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.

​

Wait until he finds out he has no such powers. Now Facebook, Twitter, and all of the other major platforms need to block all Florida IP addresses. The entertainment value will be to much.

The SC will determine whether he has such powers.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Because social media websites wouldn’t exist without it.

The Facebook monopoly wouldn't exist, anyway.

Why are you idiots trying to ruin the internet?

You idiots already ruined it, douchebag.

Ruined it? You are trying to turn every website into an unceasing cesspool of anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, harassment and generally disgusting behavior.

And you’re trying to stop websites from being able to do anything about it.

Fortunately, there's no constitutional right to be an asshole.

Actually, there is. This is why you're walking free instead of sitting in jail.

Figures that leftist drones who can't sell their freedom to political masters fast enough wouldn't understand the rights they abhor having.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Dumbass....

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

You never said if it is allowable for moderators to restrict speech that does not violate the TOS, or if a TOS is legal that restricts what is allowable to only one viewpoint.

Bodyslam

Console Control Freaks

We don't need no Netiquette Nannies
We don't need no thought control

Hey!
Web Wizard!
Whiz on the other side of the wall

All in all, you're just another
Brick through our Window

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

​

Wait until he finds out he has no such powers. Now Facebook, Twitter, and all of the other major platforms need to block all Florida IP addresses. The entertainment value will be to much.

I hope they do block out the entire state of Florida. DO IT!!!



Next? TEXAS!

How many users can Facebook lose over this? I hope it's a billion. Crash that stock!!!

 

[DrLove]

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.

​

Lol! Even Dotard’s 6-3 SCOTUS ain’t gonna take away social media’s 1st amendment right to set their own rules.
This baby is DOA. Tell Trumpy Boy in FL to spend his time on something semi-constructive

 

[dblack]

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!!!

Splitting hairs over whether the law violates free speech, of free association, or freedom of conscience, or whatever, doesn't interest me. It's a violation of freedom, that's enough for me to oppose it.

They simply have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in application of their moderation ...

What? Who says? Which law? Does USMB also have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in its moderation??

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

​

Lol! Even Dotard’s 6-3 SCOTUS ain’t gonna take away social media’s 1st amendment right to set their own rules.
This baby is DOA. Tell Trumpy Boy in FL to spend his time on something semi-constructive

This law does no such thing. It simply requires disclosure and consistent moderation OR pay damages.

 

[DrLove]

You ready to sue US Message Board if they kick you off?

Matters what they kicked me off for

No it doesn't.. This is a private board.

If it's a private board, then it can be sued.

You can sue a ham sandwich - go for it!

 

[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.

​

Lol! Even Dotard’s 6-3 SCOTUS ain’t gonna take away social media’s 1st amendment right to set their own rules.
This baby is DOA. Tell Trumpy Boy in FL to spend his time on something semi-constructive

They can set their own rules so long as they don't mind getting sued.

What part of that don't you understand?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Because social media websites wouldn’t exist without it.

The Facebook monopoly wouldn't exist, anyway.

Why are you idiots trying to ruin the internet?

You idiots already ruined it, douchebag.

Ruined it? You are trying to turn every website into an unceasing cesspool of anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, harassment and generally disgusting behavior.

And you’re trying to stop websites from being able to do anything about it.

Sorry, turd, but allowing people to have opinions about Covid or the election does not translate to "anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, harassment and generally disgusting behavior."

That's leftwing dogma.

Irrelevant. Getting rid of sedition 230 is going to make it impossible for any platform to effectively moderate anything that I mentioned.

That's what free speech is, turd. You'll have to excuse us if we don't swallow your definitions of the terms ""antisemitism, misogyny, racism, harassment and generally disgusting behavior." Criticizing Hillary is not misogyny. It's good sense,

As a woman, I consider it misogynist to suggest that women can't be criticized for their policies and actions in exactly the same way as men.

 

[bripat9643]

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!!!

Splitting hairs over whether the law violates free speech, of free association, or freedom of conscience, or whatever, doesn't interest me. It's a violation of freedom, that's enough for me to oppose it.

They simply have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in application of their moderation ...

What? Who says? Which law? Does USMB also have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in its moderation??

ROFL! The idea that you give a damn about freedom doesn't pass the laugh test. You like the current arrangement because you like it when government protected monopolies censor conservatives.

No one is fooled.