Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you (non-transparently and inconsistently)? Why do you think they have an obligation to be "transparent and consistent"? Seriously - other than, "I want them to cater to me", what is the moral and legal justification?There is no force. There is only liability.Government has no business forcing websites to follow your vision of "transparent and consistent".
They can ban all the bullshit they want. If they want to avoid tort liability, they will do so consistently and transparently.If some of us prefer a website that rejects Trump's bullshit, where do get off forcing the issue? Why do you think you should be able to sue a website for banning you?
Like many who have fallen under Trump's spell, you seem to have lost track of what liberty means.This reaction is you abandoning your principles in favor of what you want....no "Trump bullshit" You couldn't give a single rat fuck about liberty.
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.maybe
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.
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
you can sue anybody for anything.I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.maybe
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.
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
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
what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?
Do you want to hear how obtuse bripat is? He thinks his drivers license and his home address are 'privileged' information that can't be accessed without his permission.I'll help.I wouldn't be calling anyone stupid, if I were you. Your stupidity is mind boggling.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.I've never seen any convincing evidence that conservatives care about the constitution.Riiiight.Sure they will, once somebody wins one. Then the flood gates will open. Bye Bye Facebook.You think the EXTREMELY liberal John Morgan is going to take any of this crap on contingency?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....Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?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.
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/
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?
This stinking pile never makes it past the first legal test.
Bank it!
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.
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.
stupid
adjective
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.
Log In
stu·pid | \ ˈstü-pəd , ˈstyü- \
Definition of stupid
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: slow of mind : OBTUSE
b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner
c: lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH
2: dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPIDstill stupid from the sedative
3: marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESSa stupid decision
Now that you know what it means can we use the word freely?
After all, it describes you "conservatives" so accurately.
you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
For the umpteenth time it’s not “free speech” of a company to say you can only speak in a certain political way That is an ACT of censorship, not disclosed as a term of agreement.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.I'll put you down as one who believes it will be shot down, but on what grounds? Be specific.To be clear, there will be only one such lawsuit. That will culminate with the Judicary ripping this law to shreds.I HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR 5 PAGES!!!LOLNO 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.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.Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb fuck. You don't understand analogous arguments.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.The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.Fucking moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?Slander is an oral defamation, fucking moron.We have a First Amendment that says otherwise. Slander has always been actionable. The rest is merely speech that Dim NAZIs such as you don't like.You complaints have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are merely defending the ability of the left to censor conservatives, you fucking NAZI.It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.
This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.
Liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and those promoting violence shouldn't be given a venue regardless of their political affiliation.
Let them shout it to the heavens, but newspapeers won't give them creedence either.
Newspapers can be sued, moron. You've already been told that 1000 time.
Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.
You fucking pettifogger.
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?
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.
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.
So you're saying you want laws for thee but not for me?All normal thinking Americans understand that there is a difference between small private owned forums and big tech.
Hardly. But feel free to tell me what you think is wrong with what I said. Use your words.
Only a dum.... .... only someone like yourself would attempt to confuse the two.
sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liabilityyou can sue anybody for anything.I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.maybe
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.
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
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
what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Literally anthropomorphic emotionalismWho is doing the squealing now? Florida gives individuals a tort liability cause of action and everyone is screaming bloody murder as if it were their money on the line, rather than Facebook.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 there's. You support it, until it's not working in your favor - then you bail on all your principle and demand that society bake you a cake.
I sure don't. I think it's funny. Hypocritical douchbags being rejected by sane society. Keep squealing. It's awesome.And dblack doesn't see a problem
it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.maybe
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.
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
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
For the umpteenth time it’s not “free speech” of a company to say you can only speak in a certain political way That is an ACT of censorship, not disclosed as a term of agreement.
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.maybe
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.
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
I'm not particularly interested in the legal technicalities. It's the overarching goal that bothers me. Government shouldn't be dictating to media companies. Period.All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.
They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.
The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.
Of course you're not "interested in the legal technicalities." The system is working for Democrats and against Republicans as it is. You're happy. Freeze it where it is
Trump has LOST most of his 4,000 lawsuits over the years and stiffs his lawyers.. He'll never get top tier legal representation. Just like US banks won't touch him.
What a load of crap, your typical fare. Doesn't the smell bother you?
Challenge the facts, dearie.. Why do you think Wilbur Ross of the Bank of Cyrus (Russian money) became Secretary of Commerce? LOL
For the umpteenth time it’s not “free speech” of a company to say you can only speak in a certain political way That is an ACT of censorship, not disclosed as a term of agreement.
Quick question: Honestly, if the situation were reversed - if big tech was censoring BLM activists and unhinged progressives instead of Trump's gang - which side would you be on and which arguments would you be making?
You thinkTime and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.
Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”www.foxbusiness.com
Smile
When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.
If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.
From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."
As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.
If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.
Is that like, "You agree to ALL of Googles terms" and "ALL of Microsofts terms" and all of AT&T's terms" to use their products and services?
You either agree or you can't use their essential services. Some choice huh?
Except not being able to use this forum is a long way from being denied access to an "essential service".
Facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want. But how can facebook and their cabal in a free society silence others?
You don't believe in free markets. You want to government forcing people to bake you cake.Yes, it is about free markets, and that one political party can silence the only other major political party in a free society shows we have real issues being a free society
Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.
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
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
For the umpteenth time it’s not “free speech” of a company to say you can only speak in a certain political way That is an ACT of censorship, not disclosed as a term of agreement.
Quick question: Honestly, if the situation were reversed - if big tech was censoring BLM activists and unhinged progressives instead of Trump's gang - which side would you be on and which arguments would you be making?
Unless BLM was issuing specific threats, I'd totally be on their side.
