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

[DrLove]

Unfortunately these Big Tech companies have got so big and become an everyday part of American life that they have to be held accountable for being shitheads.

Get Congress to update the laws.

Good luck.

We can do it here in Florida by ourselves, thank you very much.

These filthy ass companies can be Nazis elsewhere.

Exactly. We the people receive the information and decide what we believe or don’t, accept or dismiss. It’s illegal for Big Brother tech to vacate our right and do that “for” us especially when their actions are entirely political affiliation oriented.

Even newspapers don't have to publish your letters to the editor if they are lies , slanders and threats or just stupid.. You have some very strange ideas. You know Facebook also has freedom of speech.

They can also be sued, dumbass. Part of the reason WAPO got sued by Nick Sandman is that they published only letters and editorials attacking Sandman.

Nicky got him a new MAGA hat and InvisiLine tooth straighteners.

 

[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.

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

We have plenty of lawyers down here in Florida, and no one has to pay unless those lawyers win the case....Just like the big case with Tobacco quite a few years ago, you can bet those hungry lawyers are getting ready for a very big pay day....

At Morgan & Morgan, we believe everyone is entitled to quality legal representation regardless of how much money they make. Our attorneys work on a contingency-fee basis — we don’t get paid unless you win — so that you can afford to hire an excellent attorney to protect your interests.

Frequently Asked Questions | Morgan & Morgan Law Firm​

View attachment 493074
www.forthepeople.com/faq/general/

You think the EXTREMELY liberal John Morgan is going to take any of this crap on contingency?

Loser cases each and every one.

No responsible and respectable lawyer is going to take these "cases" on contingency. Of course that does leave those great Trump election lawyers. They won lots of those cases didn't they?

Sure they will, once somebody wins one. Then the flood gates will open. Bye Bye Facebook.

Riiiight.
This stinking pile never makes it past the first legal test.
Bank it!

I've never seen any convincing evidence that conservatives care about the constitution.

When there's something they want (like a virtually limitless right to carry firearms around almost anywhere they go) they'll talk about the 2nd Amendment.

However, when there's something conservatives don't like (like abortion, or Facebook's right to manage their own platform and sanction people who violate their terms of service) then they're fine with a state passing a law which attempts to usurp federal law even though the constitution prohibits individual states from doing so.

They've VERY flexible that way.

It's the very same reason conservatives felt like they should be able to overturn the 2020 election, regardless of what the constitution states.

"I've never seen any convincing evidence that conservatives care about the Constitution" = "I want to believe they don't care about it, so I refuse to EVER be convinced, and I think the Constitution is whatever the fuck I want at the moment that conservatives refuse to give me".

*yawn*

Yeah, we're total hypocrites for only liking the parts of the Constitution that actually exist in explicit words. The problem can't possibly be that the only time left-twats like you care about the sanctity of the Constitution is when you're trying to claim it for something that doesn't exist anywhere in the document.

And by all means, you should stand on your moral authority to lecture about the horrors of "usurping federal law" . . . just as soon as you vent some of that outrage at states that legalize marijuana and have "sanctuary cities" in them.

No one's interested in hearing what you "know" the law is and how it works just because it sounded good to you when you thought of it five minutes ago.

 

[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

Libbies fear this very much. Their safe space would have holes in it and they would have to endure the sights and sounds of differing experiences and opinions.
Just pretend is some more Covid and go hide.

One of the reasons Trump won in 2016 is the fact that there was no censorhip on social media. Democrats can't win when the truth gets out.

 

[bripat9643]

Unfortunately these Big Tech companies have got so big and become an everyday part of American life that they have to be held accountable for being shitheads.

Get Congress to update the laws.

Good luck.

We can do it here in Florida by ourselves, thank you very much.

These filthy ass companies can be Nazis elsewhere.

Exactly. We the people receive the information and decide what we believe or don’t, accept or dismiss. It’s illegal for Big Brother tech to vacate our right and do that “for” us especially when their actions are entirely political affiliation oriented.

Even newspapers don't have to publish your letters to the editor if they are lies , slanders and threats or just stupid.. You have some very strange ideas. You know Facebook also has freedom of speech.

They can also be sued, dumbass. Part of the reason WAPO got sued by Nick Sandman is that they published only letters and editorials attacking Sandman.

Nicky got him a new MAGA hat and InvisiLine tooth straighteners.

Who is Nicky, and why should I care? The people who viciously attacked Sandman are douchebags.

 

[dblack]

it's a good thing this is not a government takeover. This is merely providing an ...

Sigh. Now we're going to split hairs on whether it's a "takeover" or "control", or just a little harmless "regulation". I'm quite sure you've heard liberals spinning this same nonsense. Why are you?

You're acting as if any kind of tort cause of action provided by government is the height of goose-stepping authoritarianism.

I'm saying that using the law to force social media companies to be a propaganda outlet for your dear leader is goose-stepping authoritarianism. And that is all that's going here. If FB and Twitter hadn't banned Trump, and these laws were coming from Democrats instead (which they will be soon enough) you'd be singing a different tune.

A car manufacturers can't just make a dangerous piece of shit that blows up and kills everybody, just because the car manufacturer owns the business and has artistic liberty to do whatever it wants, without being held liqble for damages their POS causes. Government will not be stopping them from making what they want, but certainly would be providing an avenue for recovery from those who were injured by that piece of shit.

See the difference?

Nope. Looks like straight up excuse-making to me. Trumpsters want to beat up on Facebook because they delete their crap. That's ALL this is.

 

[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.

​

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

All Constitutional rights have limits Everyone should know that. But conservatives seem to have this opinion that they can say anything they want, anytime they want, and anywhere they want. They're wrong.

Wrong. So long as they dont violate laws on slander, they can say whatever they want. That's what the First Amendment means, you Stalinist ignoramus.

Sorry, but organizing insurrections and telling dangerous lies is well within their right to moderate.

 

[WEATHER53]

It simply requires disclosure and consistent moderation OR pay damages.

Which is an unconstitutional abridgment of their freedom of speech.

Wrong g again
It is not a restriction of Facebooks “speech” to say that they cannot censure and remove the printed word due to the political affiliation

 

[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.

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.

Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You fucking pettifogger.

 

[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.

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

We have plenty of lawyers down here in Florida, and no one has to pay unless those lawyers win the case....Just like the big case with Tobacco quite a few years ago, you can bet those hungry lawyers are getting ready for a very big pay day....

At Morgan & Morgan, we believe everyone is entitled to quality legal representation regardless of how much money they make. Our attorneys work on a contingency-fee basis — we don’t get paid unless you win — so that you can afford to hire an excellent attorney to protect your interests.

Frequently Asked Questions | Morgan & Morgan Law Firm​

View attachment 493074
www.forthepeople.com/faq/general/

You think the EXTREMELY liberal John Morgan is going to take any of this crap on contingency?

Loser cases each and every one.

No responsible and respectable lawyer is going to take these "cases" on contingency. Of course that does leave those great Trump election lawyers. They won lots of those cases didn't they?

Sure they will, once somebody wins one. Then the flood gates will open. Bye Bye Facebook.

Riiiight.
This stinking pile never makes it past the first legal test.
Bank it!

I've never seen any convincing evidence that conservatives care about the constitution.

When there's something they want (like a virtually limitless right to carry firearms around almost anywhere they go) they'll talk about the 2nd Amendment.

However, when there's something conservatives don't like (like abortion, or Facebook's right to manage their own platform and sanction people who violate their terms of service) then they're fine with a state passing a law which attempts to usurp federal law even though the constitution prohibits individual states from doing so.

They've VERY flexible that way.

It's the very same reason conservatives felt like they should be able to overturn the 2020 election, regardless of what the constitution states.

"I've never seen any convincing evidence that conservatives care about the Constitution" = "I want to believe they don't care about it, so I refuse to EVER be convinced, and I think the Constitution is whatever the fuck I want at the moment that conservatives refuse to give me".

*yawn*

Yeah, we're total hypocrites for only liking the parts of the Constitution that actually exist in explicit words. The problem can't possibly be that the only time left-twats like you care about the sanctity of the Constitution is when you're trying to claim it for something that doesn't exist anywhere in the document.

And by all means, you should stand on your moral authority to lecture about the horrors of "usurping federal law" . . . just as soon as you vent some of that outrage at states that legalize marijuana and have "sanctuary cities" in them.

No one's interested in hearing what you "know" the law is and how it works just because it sounded good to you when you thought of it five minutes ago.

 

[Faun]

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.

Except they don't. You don't understand rule 230.

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

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[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!

You know there are a lot of things about our current system that suck. But in the end, no one could look at how the forces of government, Democrats, are getting their selfish way in all of this, silencing their opposition and justifying it with free markets.

And that just doesn't bother you at all, that free markets is your excuse for supporting the interests of totalitarian government.

If you were concerned about that you are hesitant to support this policy or that one, that could be a discussion.

But that you look at the interest of Democrat totalitarian government and say it looks right to you, that you're a "libertarian" is bull shit.

Democrats are free to say anything they want with no repercussions. The Republicans are silenced for their views, it all looks right to you. No fucking way would I say that if it were the reversed. Any one party having a monopoly on the airwaves would happen in a remotely free market. But you just don't see it

 

[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.

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

We have plenty of lawyers down here in Florida, and no one has to pay unless those lawyers win the case....Just like the big case with Tobacco quite a few years ago, you can bet those hungry lawyers are getting ready for a very big pay day....

At Morgan & Morgan, we believe everyone is entitled to quality legal representation regardless of how much money they make. Our attorneys work on a contingency-fee basis — we don’t get paid unless you win — so that you can afford to hire an excellent attorney to protect your interests.

Frequently Asked Questions | Morgan & Morgan Law Firm​

View attachment 493074
www.forthepeople.com/faq/general/

You think the EXTREMELY liberal John Morgan is going to take any of this crap on contingency?

Loser cases each and every one.

No responsible and respectable lawyer is going to take these "cases" on contingency. Of course that does leave those great Trump election lawyers. They won lots of those cases didn't they?

Rudy, Sidney or Lin Wood might take a case like this - Assuming of course they haven’t been disbarred by then

 

[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.

Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You fucking pettifogger.

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

 

[Faun]

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.

Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You fucking pettifogger.

Imbecile, it's not liable either.

 

[Faun]

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.

Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You fucking pettifogger.

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

Fucking moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

 

[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!

You know there are a lot of things about our current system that suck. But in the end, no one could look at how the forces of government, Democrats, are getting their selfish way in all of this, silencing their opposition and justifying it with free markets.

And that just doesn't bother you at all, that free markets is your excuse for supporting the interests of totalitarian government.

If you were concerned about that you are hesitant to support this policy or that one, that could be a discussion.

But that you look at the interest of Democrat totalitarian government and say it looks right to you, that you're a "libertarian" is bull shit

Of course, he's just playing games. He will make any excuse to allow leftwing censorship, regardless of what the Constitution or the law actually says.

 

[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.

​

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

All Constitutional rights have limits Everyone should know that. But conservatives seem to have this opinion that they can say anything they want, anytime they want, and anywhere they want. They're wrong.

Wrong. So long as they dont violate laws on slander, they can say whatever they want. That's what the First Amendment means, you Stalinist ignoramus.

Sorry, but organizing insurrections and telling dangerous lies is well within their right to moderate.

Of course.

This law only provides for civil liability if they delete some posts organizing "insurrection" but let BLM organize 10 huge riots without even a peep out of social media, much less similar moderation.

 

[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.

Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You fucking pettifogger.

Imbecile, it's not slander either

No one cares about what the precise term is, asshole.

 

[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.

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.

Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You fucking pettifogger.

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

Fucking moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

 

[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

All Constitutional rights have limits Everyone should know that. But conservatives seem to have this opinion that they can say anything they want, anytime they want, and anywhere they want. They're wrong.

Wrong. So long as they dont violate laws on slander, they can say whatever they want. That's what the First Amendment means, you Stalinist ignoramus.

Sorry, but organizing insurrections and telling dangerous lies is well within their right to moderate.

Of course.

This law only provides for civil liability if they delete some posts organizing "insurrection" but let BLM organize 10 huge riots without even a peep out of social media, much less similar moderation.

in that case, someone should sue Facebook for all the damage caused by the 10 huge riots.