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

[bripat9643]

Don't worry. As I've said, Democrats agree with you. We'll get a Ministry of Truth after all is said and done.

That's pretty much what you just advocated for, wanting to get rid of all of "Trump's bullshit" right?

Hopefully blockchain social media will run out from under the state power grab and put it all beyond their reach.

But, that won't shield them from tort liability.

You know, Facebook should just come out and say "we're leftists and we don't give a shit about any views but leftist view and we will ban anything we don't like." Then, nobody can argue deceptive trade and sue them, and we all get to see Facebook admit the truth.

Win win.

Yes. It’s their failure to disclose when they invite you in that makes their actions wrong.

Facebook also uses nebulous terms that give it wide lattitude to discriminate.

 

[bripat9643]

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

This has already been explained to you. If Facebook wants to be a publisher, it can, but claims to be a common carrier so it can't be sued.

Right. Just like the "public accommodation" bullshit.

But I know, I know. It's different when you do it.

That's also wrong, but one issue at a time.

What's wrong?

Public accommodation laws are wrong.

 

[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. 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.

So yet again the question you keep hiding from.

So no one is silencing them, but you actually believe that with all the Trumpsters you rail about and that half the country being Republican, it's just free market lack of interest. There is no social media interest in Trump or Republicans. You actually believe that?

No, he doesn't. He's just a lying douchebag.

 

[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.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.

As someone who owned five businesses, just FYI, it's not that simple.

So for example I owned a graphic design company. Two of our big customers were Democrat candidates and Planned Parenthood. My lead designer asked not to work for Planned Parenthood because she's Catholic and they do abortions. I said sure, we assigned the work to a different designer and all was good.

But suppose she was on social media basing Planned Parenthood and saying she worked for my company. Ifhe didn't bash my company but bashed a client, but clearly that would have been a major issue for us.

Yeah, I hate Democrats, but business is business, I still don't post politics ever on social media. I don't even "like" political posts.

Short story made long, but the answer is that I made my rules clear in the employee handbook. Laws vary by State, but most rules are enforceable if they are clear and consistently applied

I'd say bashing Planned Parenthood while saying that she worked for your company would fall under the heading of "badmouthing her employer".

On the other hand, simply bashing Planned Parenthood, from her personal social media account without mentioning your company at all, would be something else entirely.

And no, of course nothing is ever simple. That's a big part of why we have courts in the first place.

But in her case, she was well known where we lived and since my business was B2B it's a far smaller community than B2C. Her bashing Planned Parenthood would have been really, really hard not to come back on the company. Again, she didn't do that, just hypothetical.

But again, while what you say is reasonable, legally it comes down to the employment manual. I can pretty well restrict my employees social media activity, but I have to be very specific. The default is there is no restriction.

Believe it or not, I had to put in things to the point of they couldn't take cash out of the register for personal use without WRITTEN permission. Otherwise they can argue it was a verbally approved loan and it can be a lot harder to prosecute them. Same with computers and other company equipment. It's something the way it works

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The State of Florida has no jurisdiction over these companies.

However, these companies do have the right to shut down their services for the entire State of Florida.

I really don't know if that's possible. This law is ridiculous from the get go. It's like if they made a law that stated no cable news network can say Trump was involved in Russian collusion. CNN and MSNBC are not about to change their entire guest list, programming, and story coverage because of one state. If you don't like what CNN reports, simply don't turn on CNN.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

​

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

“Despite his degree from Harvard Law School, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s latest fusillade against Silicon Valley has left legal observers wondering whether he has read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

And DeSantis could have learned as much by reading a famous high court case involving his hometown paper.”

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

lawandcrime.com

Not that conservatives care about the Constitution, of course.

 

[colfax_m]

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

It’s your Republican state that is bossing around individuals to serve their own state purpose.

You’re far more socialist here than me.

 

[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?

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

So yet again the question you keep hiding from.

So no one is silencing them, but you actually believe that with all the Trumpsters you rail about and that half the country being Republican, it's just free market lack of interest. There is no social media interest in Trump or Republicans. You actually believe that?

No, he doesn't. He's just a lying douchebag.

dblack is sure evading from the question.

No one wants to hear Trump, Republicans only want to hear Democrat posters. There is just no market for people who represent half the country. It's total free market. Republicans just fail. Texas, Alabama, Florida, Montana, no one is interested in Republicans posts. Republicans only want to read Democrat posts. It's the free market. It's the story dumb ass is sticking to. Yes, dblack is a fascist. AKA a Democrat

 

[JustAGuy1]

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.

​

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

“Despite his degree from Harvard Law School, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s latest fusillade against Silicon Valley has left legal observers wondering whether he has read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

And DeSantis could have learned as much by reading a famous high court case involving his hometown paper.”

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

lawandcrime.com

Not that conservatives care about the Constitution, of course.

We just don't care about your Prog bullshit renderings of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with government, free speech, or ‘silencing’ people.

As already correctly noted: FB cannot ‘silence’ anyone – only government has the potential of violating the right to free speech, not social media.

Don’t like how FB does business – then don’t participate.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

​

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

“Despite his degree from Harvard Law School, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s latest fusillade against Silicon Valley has left legal observers wondering whether he has read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

And DeSantis could have learned as much by reading a famous high court case involving his hometown paper.”

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

lawandcrime.com

Not that conservatives care about the Constitution, of course.

All that article does is attack the de-platforming provision. None of those experts commented on TOS transparency/consistency and the civil liability the law imposes.

 

[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.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with government, free speech, or ‘silencing’ people.

As already correctly noted: FB cannot ‘silence’ anyone – only government has the potential of violating the right to free speech, not social media.

Don’t like how FB does business – then don’t participate.

It's a good thing I didn't say Facebook couldn't silence people. I said the opposite. I only made it clear that doing so without being clear about it in the TOS and not consistently applying TOS to all users would now open Facebook to civil tort liability for deceptive trade practices.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

We can all agree that FB is evil and is mean to conservatives – the ‘remedy’ is not more government, bigger government violating the First Amendment rights of social media as you and others on the authoritarian right seek to do.

 

[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

It’s your Republican state that is bossing around individuals to serve their own state purpose.

You’re far more socialist here than me.

You give deference over leftwing states and businesses over the rights of the 8individual.

I am your polar opposite

 

[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.

We can all agree that FB is evil and is mean to conservatives – the ‘remedy’ is not more government, bigger government violating the First Amendment rights of social media as you and others on the authoritarian right seek to do.

Then lets reduce government by repealing rule 230.

 

[BlueGin]

m,

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.

Facebook claims we aren't allowed to sue it because it's a "platform" protected from lawsuits under rule 230. It also claims it's allowed to control it's content any way it wants to.

Both claims can't both be true.

You are too stupid for words. The all-out assault on Facebook, youTube and twitter is about to begin.

I'm not sure you understand the lawsuit stuff. They can't be sued for CONTENT - you can sue if you get banned, but good luck.

wrong.

If they can't be sued then...why are they getting sued, and have been for some time?

Other than you and your fellow woke leftwingers, who said they can't be sued?

Considering Facebook houses private groups and allows those groups to dox other members and their businesses I’m sure they can be sued...considering they ban other groups from their platform for far less.

Just show proof of bias and damages.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can all agree that FB is evil and is mean to conservatives – the ‘remedy’ is not more government, bigger government violating the First Amendment rights of social media as you and others on the authoritarian right seek to do.

This is no more "bigger government" than states creating a cause of action for manufacturing dangerous products. It has NOTHING to do with Facebook's First Amendment rights. They cannot hold themselves out to be a free and open forum when doing so is a fucking lie. It's deceptive trade. They will pay money damanges.

 

[bripat9643]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

“Despite his degree from Harvard Law School, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’s latest fusillade against Silicon Valley has left legal observers wondering whether he has read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

And DeSantis could have learned as much by reading a famous high court case involving his hometown paper.”

Gov. DeSantis’s Proposed Law Penalizing Social Media Companies for De-Platforming Politicians Is ‘Hilariously Unconstitutional’

The pro-Trump Republican zealously advocated for a series of self-styled anti-censorship laws that three legal experts contacted by Law&Crime noted amount to unconstitutional compulsory speech for private companies—in direct contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

lawandcrime.com

Not that conservatives care about the Constitution, of course.

Those same lawyers don't see a problem with the government forcing tobacco companies to put warning labels on their product.

 

[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?

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.

What part of "common carrier" don't you understand?

The part where you just made it up as an excuse. It's like the way they use "public accommodation" to justify the discrimination laws. It just excuse-making. No real principles involved.

I didn't make up the law, you fucking moron.

 

[BlueGin]

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.

Now when it comes to platforms like Facebook, the rules are clearly stated, and to join, a person has to agree to the terms and conditions. Most people don't have a problem coloring within the lines. But just like on this forum, conservatives like to needlessly hurl rhetorical bombs, and make ad hominem insults, and levy personal attacks based on race or gender or some other perceived status of a poster.

Then they get booted and then they start complaining that they've been discriminated against and that their freedom of speech has somehow been unduly infringed upon.

The next thing you know, conservatives want to pass laws that violate the very constitution which they claim to revere.

Wash, Rinse, Repeat!

"All rights have limits . . . if they belong to conservatives. It's outrageous that they think they're allowed the same freedoms we are!"

"Facebook is being completely fair and impartial and moral!! I KNOW they are, because they're doing what I want, and they TOLD me they were!! How dare you contradict my beloved masters!!"\

"You deserve to be silenced, because you refuse to follow orders and think what we're told to!!"

Just curious: Was it the lobotomy or the castration that made you such a puling little lackey?

Why is it that you guys always sound like people immersed in self-pity and victimhood with a persecution complex on top of it all? It's weird because it's just so damn common place among conservatives.

Says the party of woke victimhood.