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

[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.

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?

I said no such thing, ya flamin' retard. What I did say is banning members for violating the terms of service they agreed to -- is not defamation.

And there's nothing in that law regarding defamation.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

I really don't see how they can do that. They would have to check the profile of each and every person which I'm sure they don't have time for. So okay, they censor somebody's post in Florida. What would the state do about it?

That's up to the state. Read the law.

 

[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.

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.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR 5 PAGES!!!

Apparently, you and your buddies hate the fact that now Floridians can sue Facebook if they get content banned by Facebook and Facebook didn't make it clear that such content would be banned, or Facebook bans January 6 organizers but lets BLM and Maxine Waters run off at the mouth WITH IMPUNITY.

Facebook's free speech is not being limited. Neither is their liability.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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.

How would that exempt them from the law?

Because the law comes from Florida and they exempted anyone who runs a theme park.

Because politicians in Florida are just corrupt enough to know they shouldn’t piss off Disney.

 

[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.

There terms of service aren't valid.

LOLOLOL

Cries the fucking moron who thinks this law is about defamation and that Facebook is a common carrier.

 

[BlindBoo]

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....

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/billion-dollar-israeli-lawsuit-against-facebook-thrown-out​

​

In dismissing the case on 18 May, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis upheld Facebook’s argument that the company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says certain Internet services are not liable for content created by a third party.​

​

The immunity this law extends to Facebook is based on the idea that such Internet companies are not the publishers or speakers of the content under question, and therefore cannot be held liable for its alleged harm.​

Rule 230 I presume?

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

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

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[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?

I said no such thing, ya flamin' retard. What I did say is banning members for violating the terms of service they agreed to -- is not defamation.

And there's nothing in that law regarding defamation.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

It's not defamation, but it is placing liability on "free speech" when it consists of banning or otherwise moderating in violation of Florida tort law.

 

[struth]

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

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

 

[Mustang]

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

Republicans are being silenced? That is hilarious since it's slightly easier to get a hungry baby to stop crying than it is to silence a Republican.

 

[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.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR 5 PAGES!!!

Apparently, you and your buddies hate the fact that now Floridians can sue Facebook if they get content banned by Facebook and Facebook didn't make it clear that such content would be banned, or Facebook bans January 6 organizers but lets BLM and Maxine Waters run off at the mouth WITH IMPUNITY.

Facebook's free speech is not being limited. Neither is their liability.

To be clear, there will be only one such lawsuit. That will culminate with the Judicary ripping this law to shreds.

 

[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.

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.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR 5 PAGES!!!

Apparently, you and your buddies hate the fact that now Floridians can sue Facebook if they get content banned by Facebook and Facebook didn't make it clear that such content would be banned, or Facebook bans January 6 organizers but lets BLM and Maxine Waters run off at the mouth WITH IMPUNITY.

Facebook's free speech is not being limited. Neither is their liability.

To be clear, there will be only one such lawsuit. That will culminate with the Judicary ripping this law to shreds.

I'll put you down as one who believes it will be shot down, but on what grounds? Be specific.

 

[Faun]

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

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

 

[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.

Billion-dollar Israeli lawsuit against Facebook thrown out

Mossad-linked lawyers group to appeal New York judge's dismissal.

electronicintifada.net

​

​

In dismissing the case on 18 May, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis upheld Facebook’s argument that the company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says certain Internet services are not liable for content created by a third party.​

​

The immunity this law extends to Facebook is based on the idea that such Internet companies are not the publishers or speakers of the content under question, and therefore cannot be held liable for its alleged harm.​

Did you see common carrier anywhere in that? If you do, you’re delusional.

 

[dblack]

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!!!!

It just forced them to speak. On command. And then dictates who they can ban and who they can't. Freedom!

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.

Right. You want government to be the "hall monitor" for website moderation. But only for sites targeted as "common carriers".

You know - here's what you guys are in TOTAL denial about. There's no conspiracy of deep state government forcing tech companies to cancel Trumpsters. It's just that most of us are fed up with the bullshit. Fed up with the constant stream of demagoguery and propaganda. We're done putting up with it and we prefer websites that block it.

And now you want to pass laws forcing us to bake you a cake.

 

[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.

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

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.

Let us know when they win their first case -
Until then? STFU

 

[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.

I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR 5 PAGES!!!

Apparently, you and your buddies hate the fact that now Floridians can sue Facebook if they get content banned by Facebook and Facebook didn't make it clear that such content would be banned, or Facebook bans January 6 organizers but lets BLM and Maxine Waters run off at the mouth WITH IMPUNITY.

Facebook's free speech is not being limited. Neither is their liability.

To be clear, there will be only one such lawsuit. That will culminate with the Judicary ripping this law to shreds.

I'll put you down as one who believes it will be shot down, but on what grounds? Be specific.

It infringes on the companies' rights of free speech, not the members. Free speech isn't just the issue of limiting speech, it also includes forcing speech on someone. Social media platforms are private entities, they can limit speech on any of their members as they choose. Florida is the government. The government cannot infringe on a private entity's (or person's) right of free speech. Florida will lose the moment the attempt to fine anyone over this.

 

[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.

No, even that won't do it. If they are "upfront" and says they are going to censor conservatives, they are still opening themselves to a lawsuit.

Its not about censoring conservatives.. Its about censoring liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and violent rhetoric.

"It's not about censoring conservatives. It's just about censoring people I label as bad because they disagree with me!!"

Wake the fuck up, you dumb bitch.

Multiple left-wing "news" organizations posted highly edited videos of Trump's statements regarding Charlottesville, to make it look like he said things he didn't say so that gullible ass-lickers like you would run out and parrot it, and those lies are still up.

That's just one example of something that was both a lie AND slander.

The Ayatollah Khameini posted this on his Twitter account as regards the Palestinians firing rockets on Israel:

Palestinians are awake and determined. They must continue this path. One can only talk with the language of power with these criminals. They must increase their strength, stand strong, confront the enemy, and force them to stop their crimes. #FreePalestine

Last time I checked, he still has a Twitter account and hasn't even received a warning for this incitement to violence.

So no, ignorant twat, social media isn't "censoring liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists, and violent rhetoric". They're censoring conservatives, and you're cheering for bigotry while telling yourself that it doesn't make you the piece of shit you know, deep down, that you are.

Congratulations for being on the same side as the Ayatollah, though, and good luck spinning that into something to be proud of.

 

[WEATHER53]

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

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

That’s not an exchange of ideas. That’s a physical act

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It just forced them to speak. On command.

Florida is placing additional requirements on terms of service for social media, with tort liability causes of action for failure to do so. Don't read anything else into it or you will break your back trying to twist it into something you can actually complain about.

Right. You want government to be the "hall monitor" for website moderation. But only for sites targeted as "common carriers".

Government will be no more of a hall monitor on this tort liability than any other tort cause of action. Government is monitoring nothing. Individuals are allowed to sue social media for specific failures under mandatory terms of service. Government has no monitoring roll other than through litigation.

You know - here's what you guys are in TOTAL denial about. There's no conspiracy of deep state government forcing big tech companies to cancel Trumpsters. It's just that most of are fed up with the bullshit. Fed up with the constant stream of demagoguery and propaganda. We're done putting up with it. And now you want to use the government of force people to bake you a cake.

It's not using government force in any way more than suing another driver for negligence in a motor vehicle collision is using government force to "steal" the money from the liable party.

Do you believe in tort liability or not?

 

[dblack]

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.

Right. Your support for the free market is just as fake as theirs. You support it, until it's not working in your favor - then you bail on all your principles and demand that society bake you a cake.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

I sure don't. I think it's funny. Hypocritical douchebags being rejected by sane society. Keep squealing. It's awesome.