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]

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

It sure is. Facebook is engaging in speech by publishing content. This bill limits their ability to decide what content to publish. That is limiting their speech.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

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.

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.

Quote Facebpok declaring themselves a common carrier....

More importantly, quote the government declaring Facebook a common carrier.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Except for the part where they force them to provide a platform for "most favored" politicians. You keep for getting that part.

I think there is a real chance that part gets shot down. I am not talking about that. It can be deemed unconstitutional and the remainder of the law can remain in place.

jump through a few hoops. I've heard that one before.

Yes, jump threw a few hoops, car manufacturers. You will pay damages if you produce a POS that hurts or kills people.
--signed Authoritarian Government

I'm still wondering where you get this idea that FB has some kind legal obligation to moderate consistently. Outside of the legal mandates, how do you justify that?

It's under Florida's deceptive trade practices act. You've been actively yelling about that authoritarian tort legislation for decades I am sure. What? You haven't?

Yeah.

 

[colfax_m]

. If it wants to be a publisher, then it can be sued.

Not according to federal law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

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.

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.

Quote Facebpok declaring themselves a common carrier....

More importantly, quote the government declaring Facebook a common carrier.

The Florida bill does. That's "government" right?

 

[airplanemechanic]

This no name forum that only a few dozen people really use is nothing compared to Facebook and twitter who have the entire country wrapped around their fingers. ATT was a private company too, but they can't cut off your service because they don't like that you use it to call people and solicit votes for Trump.

Facebook has become so large and influential that the laws have to change to reflect it. They can't edit content to their discretion and then claim 230 immunity because they are a neutral platform.

How they categorize Facebook and Twitter is one thing. But a Governor of one state can't make those demands because then those outlets would have to change their platform for the entire US and world to be in compliance.

No, they would only have to change for Florida. You can't sue in florida state court if you're not a resident of Florida or didn't suffer a tort in Florida.

 

[colfax_m]

The Florida bill does

The hell it does. Feel free to quote the relevant section of the bill which declares them a “common carrier”.

 

[WEATHER53]

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

It sure is. Facebook is engaging in speech by publishing content. This bill limits their ability to decide what content to publish. That is limiting their speech.

When you know the difference between a speech versus an action then get back to me

 

[Mustang]

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.

To paraphrase Val Kilmer's Doc Holiday in "Tombstone" from 1993, conservative hypocrisy knows no bounds. However, it is a wonder to behold. I'm especially entertained when they talk about being a "principled conservative" despite the fact that they lie all the time just like the conservatives on this message board do.

Here's what a conservative illiterate posted about this particular subject yesterday:

"The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless."

What makes the post so mind-numbingly obtuse is the fact that, when it comes to federal law, state lines are irrelevant.

The "explicit words" of a constitution written in the 18th century needs to be interpreted in a 21st century world where living standards are so different but human beings and our natures are essentially the same as people from 250 years earlier. As an example, that means that a right to privacy today has to be interpreted based on the digital era we live in and not just an earlier era of hand-written correspondence.

 

[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 slander either

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

LOLOL

Fucking moron, it's the term you used. I guess you finally realize your own opinion is utterly worthless.

 

[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?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

It sure is. Facebook is engaging in speech by publishing content. This bill limits their ability to decide what content to publish. That is limiting their speech.

IT DOES NOT LIMIT THEIR SPEECH!!!!

How many times have I shown you that this does not limit what Facebook or other social media can do. It simply provides for tort liability if they fail to give users clear guidelines on what content will be banned and they moderate that content consistently, as in, banning January 6 "insurrection" planning but letting BLM organize a nation-wide riot and letting Maxine Waters threaten jurors via Facebook's platform. The consequences of such is tort liability.

 

[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?

No one cares, asshole.

You must care, otherwise, you wouldn't have offered up such a stupid suggestion.

 

[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.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

 

[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.

As usual the fucking cucking moron is you
Unknown to emotional you is that the principal requirement for slander, libel and defamation is that the utterer KNEW the statement was false AND that it would have a harmful effect upon the recipient

Which doesn't apply to social media enforcing violations to the terms of service by which their members agreed to abide.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here's what a conservative illiterate posted about this particular subject yesterday:

"The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless."

What makes the post so mind-numbingly obtuse is the fact that, when it comes to federal law, state lines are irrelevant.

But, social media is doing business in Florida because Florida consumers use social media. Social media will therefore be subject to Florida laws. Federal law is irrelevant here.

The "explicit words" of a constitution written in the 18th century needs to be interpreted in a 21st century world where living standards are so different but human beings and our natures are essentially the same as people from 250 years earlier. As an example, that means that a right to privacy today has to be interpreted based on the digital era we live in and not just an earlier era of hand-written correspondence.

Yes, but if something in the Constitution does not work well with the modern era, there's a way to fix it so that it does. It's call the amendment process.

 

[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?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

 

[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.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb fuck. You don't understand analogous arguments.

Let me explain it to you.

Just like defamation DOES NOT limit free speech, but provides for tort liability on said speech, this Florida law DOES NOT limit what Facebook can ban, but provides for tort liability if Facebook does not disclose and moderate consistently.

See? This is called an analogous argument. Any questions?

 

[kaz]

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.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Huh, you like a system where Democrats speak freely and Republicans are being silenced. Who saw that coming?

 

[evenflow1969]

Lol, ever heard of unenforceable laws?

No all I've heard of are laws that leftist politician scum won't enforce.

Lol, what ever.