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

[bripat9643]

good for him....FUCK the LYING, SCUM, demonRATS....
can't wait to hear those scum whine about this

LOL

Who's whining? I can't wait for him to try to fine a private company for flexing their Constitutionally provided First Amendment rights.

We'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.

LOLOL

Facebook is laughing at DeSantis.

Facebook has the right to block any content which violates their terms of service. That includes politicians.

No they don't.

LOLOL

Yet they do and there's nothing you can do about it beyond shaking your cane at the sky.

Sure there is. DeSantis just did it. Suing them is another way.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Not according to federal law.

Yes, according to federal communications law.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

A porn producer was recently sent to prison because his movies were available over the internet, including some jurisdictions that ruled they were obscene. It didn't matter that the server was in California.

 

[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.

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?

You're retarded. I never said the ban limits free speech. I said it forces companies to provide free speech which violates said companies rights.

 

[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.

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.

There terms of service aren't valid.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

What is it you're looking for him to say about the insane lie you were told and that you ignorantly believed?

 

[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.

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.

I don't case about your quibbling about the proper term to use. Why should I? That's just a diversion so you can avoid addressing the point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"People I've decided to label as bad because they don't agree with me should never be allowed to speak. Only good people, defined as people who believe like me, should have any rights!"

Uh huh.

On the bright side, most of the evil pieces of shit in human history also thought they were virtuous, so you're in famous company for your delusion. And you'll be dead by the time people are spitting on your memory, so you probably won't know about 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.

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.

I wouldn't be calling anyone stupid, if I were you. Your stupidity is mind boggling.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"Of course he said it. My masters TOLD me he did, so it MUST be true! And look at all the other things he did that I believe are bad!!! Just go look at what I was told to believe about them!!! That should be proof!!"

 

[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.

"People I've decided to label as bad because they don't agree with me should never be allowed to speak. Only good people, defined as people who believe like me, should have any rights!"

Uh huh.

On the bright side, most of the evil pieces of shit in human history also thought they were virtuous, so you're in famous company for your delusion. And you'll be dead by the time people are spitting on your memory, so you probably won't know about it.

Saruda uses the same excuses as Hitler and Stalin used for censoring speech.

 

[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.

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?

He feels you response does not quell his feelings

That must be it.

Or....nah. He's a dumb fuck. Let's be honest.

LOL

Slobbers a retard who thinks a bill which states nothing about defamation ... is about defamation.

 

[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?

You're retarded. I never said the ban limits free speech. I said it forces companies to provide free speech which violates said companies rights.

NO IT DOES NOT!!!! They can ban ANYTHING they want. They just have to make it clear in the TOS and apply it consistently or users can sue them.

 

[Faun]

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.

Facebook claims it's a common carrier, moron.

If that were true, you would have quoted them saying that when I challenged to prove you're not lying again.

Instead, you avoided that.

 

[kaz]

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.

maybe

but that doesn’t negate the fact that all that takes place on facebook and tweeter as well, and they shouldn’t be above the law and protected from liability

That's the point.. Facebook doesn't want the liability associated with lies, slander and bad medical advice. Trump needs to take that on himself.. He's trying to undermine the election process. Facebook doesn't want to be party to that.

Trump should take on the liability of his lies and conspiracy theories.

No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".

You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

 

[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?

He feels you response does not quell his feelings

That must be it.

Or....nah. He's a dumb fuck. Let's be honest.

LOL

Slobbers a retard who thinks a bill which states nothing about defamation ... is about defamation.

Well, let's see.

You and others keep claiming that nobody can put any liability on free speech. And I said, "what about defamation"?

Do you want me to continue or will you admit that you're a fucking idiot?

 

[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.

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?

You're retarded. I never said the ban limits free speech. I said it forces companies to provide free speech which violates said companies rights.

NO IT DOES NOT!!!! They can ban ANYTHING they want. They just have to make it clear in the TOS and apply it consistently or users can sue them.

LOL

Now you're agreeing with me. I said multiple times they can ban any member for violating their terms of service.

Glad you're finally on board.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

"People I've decided to label as bad because they don't agree with me should never be allowed to speak. Only good people, defined as people who believe like me, should have any rights!"

Uh huh.

On the bright side, most of the evil pieces of shit in human history also thought they were virtuous, so you're in famous company for your delusion. And you'll be dead by the time people are spitting on your memory, so you probably won't know about it.

You got it. If I have a White Lives Matter sign in my yard close to the sidewalk and a feelings frazzled libbie reaches over and removes it then said lib loon will declare they did Not take an action but were rather engaging in their free speech.
In fact most of them contend it is their free speech to prohibit and remove our speech.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Fine, but social media must be UP FRONT about their monitoring policies.

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.

Fine, but social media must be UP FRONT about their monitoring policies.

Why would that matter? Either Trump is too stupid to understand their policies, or he's defiant and belligerent.. He had four years to clean up his act.

"It's not our fault for silencing people who disagree with us; it's THEIR fault for not agreeing with us!"