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

[kaz]

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

Anyone disagreeing with you shutting the fuck up is a theme with you, fascist

 

[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

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?

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

because they can...they aren’t the govt...the first amendment only applies to the govt

with that said we are free not to use their service

and we should be able to sue them for liability for their content that they publish

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government has no business forcing websites to follow your vision of "transparent and consistent".

There is no force. There is only liability.

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?

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 (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?

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.

Like many who have fallen under Trump's spell, you seem to have lost track of what liberty means.

It comes down to you wanting to silence "Trump bullshit" and you are throwing a fit now that Facebook can't just haul off an ban shit without some modicum of notice or consistency, or face tort liability. It's not your money on the hook. It's not Facebooks money either, if Facebook is diligent in being transparent and consistent.

You're mad because you don't get your way. Admit it.

 

[kaz]

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

And seriously, what employer lets employees stage political protests AT WORK. It's a totally different thing. No one was silencing them telling them to protest on their own time

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 fucking KNOW what side I would be on, and I still would not mind tort liability for unfair TOS action.

 

[kaz]

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.

And you believe in a free market that Democrats can shut down Republicans. The country is split, and yet no one wants to hear Republicans or discuss it. Just lack of interest, free markets silenced Republicans. You actually believe that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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."

And "damaging specific entities" is the only motivation. The rest is pathetic excuse-making. If the situation were reversed, if big tech were shunning unhinged Democrats and progressives, pretty much everyone here would be making exactly the opposite arguments.

Au Contraire.

I want idiots to run their mouths and expose themselves as such. You, on the other hand....

 

[kaz]

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.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

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

Who 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.

It's everyone's freedom that's on the line. Government needs to stay out of this.

Yep. You have the system you want. Republicans are shut down, Democrats say anything the fuck they want with no repercussions. So your answer is freeze it there. I already pointed out that's what you want.

If Democrats were the ones being silence, you'd be streaking like a stuck pig

 

[kaz]

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."

And "damaging specific entities" is the only motivation. The rest is pathetic excuse-making. If the situation were reversed, if big tech were shunning unhinged Democrats and progressives, pretty much everyone here would be making exactly the opposite arguments.

Au Contraire.

I want idiots to run their mouths and expose themselves as such. You, on the other hand....

Did you mean on the other hand or for example?

 

[WEATHER53]

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?

I would still classify it as censorship because it is but I would not be up in arms about it because I dont support the fallacy of BLM. I would not however be seeking the banishment of them. I can dispute their assertions and not fall apart over them and seek their obliteration to quell my feelings.
I was a good question posed by you and thank you for it..

 

[dblack]

Government has no business forcing websites to follow your vision of "transparent and consistent".

There is no force. There is only liability.

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?

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 (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?

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.

Like many who have fallen under Trump's spell, you seem to have lost track of what liberty means.

It comes down to you wanting to silence "Trump bullshit" and you are throwing a fit now that Facebook can't just haul off an ban shit without some modicum of notice or consistency, or face tort liability. It's not your money on the hook. It's not Facebooks money either, if Facebook is diligent in being transparent and consistent.

You're mad because you don't get your way. Admit it.

I'm often mad when I don't get my way. But "my way" isn't what you pretend. I don't want to see Trump "silenced". But Facebook isn't doing that. They can't do that. That's the part of your argument that simply isn't true. You guys are butthurt because people don't like what you're selling. Sorry.

Now - the thing you keep dodging: where do you get this idea that websites should be legally obligated to be "transparent and consistent"? Should this apply to everyone? Or just the businesses that Trump has targeted for retribution?

 

[struth]

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

And seriously, what employer lets employees stage political protests AT WORK. It's a totally different thing. No one was silencing them telling them to protest on their own time

heck they can do it on tweeter and facebook as much as they want even say kill jews if they want...but question Xiden? they’ll be banned

 

[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

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?

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.

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?

Faun screams Republicans suck at every other employee and customer who wears anything red. His boss is fine with that, right Faun?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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."

And "damaging specific entities" is the only motivation. The rest is pathetic excuse-making. If the situation were reversed, if big tech were shunning unhinged Democrats and progressives, pretty much everyone here would be making exactly the opposite arguments.

Au Contraire.

I want idiots to run their mouths and expose themselves as such. You, on the other hand....

Did you mean on the other hand or for example?

No, dblack is inconsistent and appears to be a leftist at times, but he is not a moron. He does (admittedly) want to ban stuff he does not like. See his posts above about "Trump bullshit." He is apparently no one who wants to protect speech he hates. He is no Voltaire.

 

[dblack]

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 fucking KNOW what side I would be on ...

Yeah, I do. Just hoping you might deny it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

The football players were only silenced AT WORK. No one silenced them other than that. Or proposed it.

Be more specific about the political protests you do at work

By that standard, I'm routinely "silenced" at work. There's a whole host of things I can't say or do while I'm on the company dime. Fairly certain that's true for 99% of working people in the world.

 

[DrLove]

Amazing: This stupid thread is now 40 pages long.
And the Angry Lil Bird-Flipper Boy seriously believes this shit.
It’d be sad were it not so GD tragic!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm often mad when I don't get my way. But "my way" isn't what you pretend. I don't want to see Trump "silenced". But Facebook isn't doing that. They can't do that. That's the part of your argument that simply isn't true. You guys are butthurt because people don't like. Sorry.

Then Facebook has nothing to worry about. RIGHT?

Now - the thing you keep dodging: where do you get this idea that websites should be legally obligated to be "transparent and consistent"? Should this apply to everyone? Or just the businesses that Trump has targeted for retribution?

When operating as a social media platform pretending to be open to all people and failing to do so should give users a cause of action, no? Especially when deliberate.

 

[dblack]

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?

I would still classify it as censorship because it is but I would not be up in arms about it because I dont support the fallacy of BLM. I would not however be seeking the banishment of them. I can dispute their assertions and not fall apart over them and seek their obliteration to quell my feelings.
I was a good question posed by you and thank you for it..

Shame you couldn't bring yourself to answer it honestly.

But I think we'll get the chance to see some true colors relatively soon, because - and here's the kicker - Democrats are just as stoked as you about sinking some government teeth into social media. They recognize it as a fantastic tool for manipulating public opinion, and they want in. We'll see if you're still cheering when they do it.

 

[kaz]

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?

How is FB "silencing" anyone? If the local paper refuses to publish your letter to the editor, are you being "silenced"? If a local restaurant refuses to serve you, is that forced starvation? If the cute girl you have a crush on won't sleep with you, are you being "sexually harassed"? (I got that last bit from Beavis and Butthead, but it seems to go well with your args).

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

You don't believe in free markets. You want to government forcing people to bake you cake.

So free markets silenced a party that represents half the country. There was no market interest. Democrats, facebook, left wing social media did nothing. No one had any interest so all conservative social media failed.

You really believe that? That's what you're saying?