Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
No one cares, asshole.Fucking moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.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.You complaints have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are merely defending the ability of the left to censor conservatives, you fucking NAZI.It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.
This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.
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.
Newspapers can be sued, moron. You've already been told that 1000 time.
Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.
You fucking pettifogger.
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.
Tech companies have every right to use their property as they see fit. They have no liability for what is said on their network. This is a Republican thing. The Republican Party subsists on hate. This law will be thrown out. Federal law supercedes state laws.
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.
LOLOLDon't just say it -- quote it...Rule 230 doesWho says they have to be fair?What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?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.
And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?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.
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.
A common carrier (also called a public carrier in British English)[3] is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity." A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers,[4] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[3]
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
It's neither a takeover, control, regulation, nor anything else. This is simply a tort cause of action. PERIOD.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?
READ THE LAW. They can ban anything they want, as long as they are consistent in banning content and they DISCLOSE what they will ban. Otherwise, wrongfully moderated parties have a tort action. THAT IS ALL. Stop making shit up.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.
Well, this misses the mark if that's the goal, because Facebook can ban what they want. They will only face tort liability if they fail to clearly outline what will be banned and do so consistently across the board. They can ban like wild banshees if they want. The consequence is opening themselves up for tort liability.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.
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.
Sure, they have a right to moderate. But when they are moderating content they are content providers and not entitled to be treated as a platform and immune from certain lawsuits because they aren't a platform, they are a service providers.
Platforms moderate for things like threats and other legal issues. They don't moderate by deleting and suppressing views that they don't agree with. Your post is a total zero
You only convinced us that you're a Stalinist douchebag.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
You're delusional. Facebook isn't a totalitarian government. They aren't a police state. They have no police. They enforce no laws.
You're mad because they banned Trump and you want revenge.
Funny thing is, I'm mad at Facebook too. I think they should have banned Trump before he was ever elected, and waiting until after he was voted out of office was pure chickenshit. But I'm not asking the government to force Facebook to do what I want. I just deleted my account instead.
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.
As usual the fucking cucking moron is youSlander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.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.You complaints have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are merely defending the ability of the left to censor conservatives, you fucking NAZI.It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.
This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.
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.
Newspapers can be sued, moron. You've already been told that 1000 time.
Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.
I already posted the part of the communications act that discusses common carriers, you fucking NAZI.LOLOLDon't just say it -- quote it...Rule 230 doesWho says they have to be fair?What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?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.
And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?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.
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.
A common carrier (also called a public carrier in British English)[3] is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity." A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers,[4] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[3]
Fucking moron, you said rule 230 specifies they must be fair. I'll take you posting from Wikipedia about common carriers as admission on your part even you know you're a fucking moron.
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
You're delusional. Facebook isn't a totalitarian government. They aren't a police state. They have no police. They enforce no laws.
You're mad because they banned Trump and you want revenge.
Funny thing is, I'm mad at Facebook too. I think they should have banned Trump before he was ever elected, and waiting until after he was voted out of office was pure chickenshit. But I'm not asking the government to force Facebook to do what I want. I just deleted my account instead.
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.
They allowed Maxine Waters to break all sorts of laws by publicly threatening a jury
LOLOLNo they don't.LOLOLWe'll see when it happens. I'll bet the Facebook won't dare to censor any politicians. They don't want to test the law and lose.LOLgood for him....FUCK the LYING, SCUM, demonRATS....
can't wait to hear those scum whine about this
Who's whining? I can't wait for him to try to fine a private company for flexing their Constitutionally provided First Amendment rights.
Facebook is laughing at DeSantis.
Facebook has the right to block any content which violates their terms of service. That includes politicians.
It's neither a takeover, control, regulation, nor anything else. This is simple a tort cause of action. PERIOD.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?
jump through a few hoops. I've heard that one before.They can ban anything they want, as long as they ...
Leave it to you to claim that there's a constitutional right to be an asshole. Having said that, I have little doubt that you could very well be the only plaintiff who could and probably would argue that case all the way to the supreme court, assuming, of course, that they accepted to hear the case.Actually, there is.Fortunately, there's no constitutional right to be an asshole.Ruined it? You are trying to turn every website into an unceasing cesspool of anti-semitism, misogyny, racism, harassment and generally disgusting behavior.You idiots already ruined it, douchebag.Why are you idiots trying to ruin the internet?The Facebook monopoly wouldn't exist, anyway.Because social media websites wouldn’t exist without it.Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?
And you’re trying to stop websites from being able to do anything about it.
You hop from one stupid claim to another.
I think I know what the finding of that august body would be. They would find that while you are clearly and indisputably an asshole of the first order, you simply don't have a constitutional right to be one.
You know what’s going to be cheaper than any of this? Facebook buying 25 acres in Florida, putting in a tilt a whirl and therefore exempting themselves from the law.That's the example that makes me support the Florida law more than anything else. SUE the FUCK out of these ass hats. Make them pay
Quote Facebpok declaring themselves a common carrier....Facebook incurred that obligation when it declared itself to be a "common carrier." That's the only reason it is supposedly exempt from lawsuits. If it wants to be a publisher, then it can be sued.Because it places an obligation on Facebook’s speech. Imagine if I passed a law saying that you have to be consistent in your speech or else I can sue you.Providing a tort claim for Facebook failing to disclose what continent they will edit is not limiting Facebook free speech. Providing a tort cause of action for Facebook failing to apply consistent application of its moderation practices is not a violation of Facebook free speech.
That's the example that makes me support the Florida law more than anything else. SUE the FUCK out of these ass hats. Make them pay.Of course.Sorry, but organizing insurrections and telling dangerous lies is well within their right to moderate.
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.
They allowed Maxine Waters to break all sorts of laws by publicly threatening a jury
