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

[kaz]

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.

Fake news. I don't believe this for second, and neither do you. At best, you wouldn't care. But most likely, you'd think it was funny.

You're the fascist. There is no way I would want BLM silenced. We are entirely different people. Hearing things you disagrees with scares you. Hearing one side scares me. You can't believe I would want voices I disagree with the freedom to speak because you don't

 

[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?

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.i

i dare say most people on tweeter or facebook don’t work there

with that said i have no problem with an employer firing someone for what they say on those sites

 

[dblack]

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.

No, they didn't. Free markets can't "silence" anyone. That's one of your paranoid delusions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Kiss my ass. You know good and Goddamn well I want those commie idiots to keep on talking.

 

[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

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

There are other factors. When they are silencing one side for political contributions, that is a contribution to the other side, particularly when that is the service they engage in. And the government is providing them with free access to customers at taxpayer expense. And they are taking it. So they should serve anyone who is paying for their business to operate.

That fucking Google shut down Parlor, not even their own competitor, was particularly a flagrant anti-trust action

 

[lantern2814]

Nazi liberals are going to hate this

This is a joke.. DeSantis is playing for a headline.

Nope. He just stuck a dagger into the belly of the big tech monster.

You ready to sue US Message Board if they kick you off?

Facebook is not US Message Board.

Same rules.. This board is privately owned just like facebook. DeSantis is too stupid for words.

Privately owned, but using a PUBLIC utility. The internet or WiFi is not theirs to run. Some big tech guys are shaking in their loafers now.

 

[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.i

i dare say most people on tweeter or facebook don’t work there

with that said i have no problem with an employer firing someone for what they say on those sites

I think it depends on what they say. Obviously, if the employee is on social media badmouthing their employer, or advocating illegal activity, then I'd say firing is reasonable. I'll even go so far as to say I wouldn't have a problem with firing someone who's being overtly racist or sexist.

When we get down to firing people for expressing opinions the employer doesn't like, that's something different. I would consider that a wrongful firing, and support the employee suing on those grounds.

 

[dblack]

Facebook can't silence people. Governments, however, can. Here's an example: Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says

Any questions?

 

[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?

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.

Yep. Faun hasn't given any specifics about how he's allowed to be a leftist dick at work and his employer is fine with it.

Faun?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Liar. You want Trump and every other conservative silenced. Yes, Facebook did do that.

If they don't want to be sued, then they need to be consistent. Otherwise they are acting as publishers and can be sued.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

 

[kaz]

Facebook can't silence people. Governments, however, can. Here's an example: Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says

Any questions?

Yes. Why isn't it working? Why are Republicans being silenced on social media if only government can silence them? Is government silencing them? Or are you wrong? Which is it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Facebook can't silence people. Governments, however, can. Here's an example: Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says

Any questions?

Facebook can pretend to be open to all people and just be a bunch of fucking liars. Facebook can also pay damages for such deceptive trade practices.

 

[bripat9643]

Facebook can't silence people. Governments, however, can. Here's an example: Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says

Any questions?

Yes, Facebook can silence people. It's a government protected monopoly. It claims to be a common carrier. The Communications act specifies that common carriers cannot discriminate. Telephone companies can't discriminate, and neither can Facebook.

 

[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?

Liar. You want Trump and every other conservative silenced. Yes, Facebook did do that.

If they don't want to be sued, then they need to be consistent. Otherwise they are acting as publishers and can be sued.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

You don't have a clue what being silenced is. Being banned from Facebook is not being silenced. It just means they, and their users, don't want to listen to your bullshit.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Restricting Facebook from censoring speech is not censoring Facebooks speech. It’s prohibiting an Action.

Yes. Restricting Facebook from deciding what it will and won’t publish limits their free speech rights.

Prohibiting an exercise of speech is restricting it.

So the "state" is greater than the individuals in the state? You're a socialist

 

[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?

Liar. You want Trump and every other conservative silenced. Yes, Facebook did do that.

If they don't want to be sued, then they need to be consistent. Otherwise they are acting as publishers and can be sued.

How many times do I have to explain that to you?

Bake the cake!

 

[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.

No, they didn't. Free markets can't "silence" anyone. That's one of your paranoid delusions.

You're playing word games. By free markets silencing them, I meant there is no interest in Republicans. I already said that several times, you're being a dick.

So you are saying there is no interest in Trump or the Republican party even though Republicans represent half the party. You actually believe that. Seriously?

 

[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..

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.

Well you did pose a good question but in not getting the answer that you wanted you arrogantly answer and falsely claim my response was dishonesty. As if you know what I’m being honest about which is a constant piss ass claim by you libs.
That’s where you fall back into the category of childish feelings freak.

I dont need to hide or be sheltered from differing opinions .
The Moderators can confirm this but I Have Not Blocked One Single Poster from here. If I have it might be one and from a long time ago.

I don’t operate from flimsy feelings where I can’t cope if I hear or see different opinions. I will discuss and debate a lot but never shelter myself from dissent. It’s called having the courage of ones convictions. I don’t need that courage to be validated or bolstered by your obliteration .

 

[dblack]

Facebook can't silence people. Governments, however, can. Here's an example: Belarus 'diverts Ryanair flight to arrest journalist', opposition says

Any questions?

Yes. Why isn't it working? Why are Republicans being silenced on social media if only government can silence them?

They aren't being silenced. That is a lie. Sorry.

 

[dblack]

Refusing to bake someone a cake isn't "starving them". And refusing to host a politician's propaganda isn't "silencing them". These are conceits of statists desperately trying to justify their bullying.