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

[colfax_m]

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.

It’s the exact same issue given the civil liability is for damages caused by deplatforming individuals.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

It’s the exact same issue given the civil liability is for damages caused by deplatforming individuals.

No, they are talking about the part where they make facebook allow all political candidates to have a page. Can't ban them.

Individuals who are blocked or have content removed without effective TOS notice or consistent TOS application have a cause of action against Facebook. They did NOT address THAT issue.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

It’s the exact same issue given the civil liability is for damages caused by deplatforming individuals.

No, they are talking about the part where they make facebook allow all political candidates to have a page. Can't ban them.

Individuals who are blocked or have content removed without effective TOS notice or consistent TOS application have a cause of action against Facebook. They did NOT address THAT issue.

It’s the same issue. You can’t hide a violation of their constitutional rights behind a civil liability. That violation of constitutional rights is the same whether you’re assigning fines or making a civil liability.

 

[colfax_m]

I am your polar opposite

The individual has no right to post on Facebook. Facebook is not that individuals property therefore they do not get to tell Facebook how to treat their content.

You claim individual rights which don’t exist.

 

[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.

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

Admittedly, I don't live in a small town. I live in a big, anonymous city, where no one knows much of anyone.

I will agree that if you notified her of the requirements when she was hired - which it sounds like you did - and she agreed to them by accepting the job, that's a different matter.

 

[progressive hunter]

I am your polar opposite

The individual has no right to post on Facebook. Facebook is not that individuals property therefore they do not get to tell Facebook how to treat their content.

You claim individual rights which don’t exist.

once again you twist the reality of the issue,,,

 

[BlueGin]

Only of politicians running for office.

Doesn’t matter. It’s compelling speech.

To some extent. However, I don't have a problem with it since Facebook is nothing more than a propaganda organ now, and it's a monopoly.

Ah, so you’re okay with violating the constitution as long as it supports your politicians?

Kinda sounds a little fascist.

It's a government protected monopoly. It should have been split up long ago.

It’s not a government protected monopoly.

But you do have a justification for acting a little like a fascist.

Of course it's a government protected monopoly. That's irrefutable. Rule 230 is a federal regulation that protects it, and it's clearly a monopoly. It's far more of a monopoly than Standard Oil ever was.

Section 230 applies to every other website too. Hard to say government protects a monopoly when it extends that protection to literally every one of their competitors.

Speaking of section 230, this law attempts to break it, however the supremacy clause would prevent that.

Man, Floridians really don’t understand how government works.

It doesn't apply to publishers. It claims to apply only to "platforms." Facebook is operating like a publisher, not a platform.

I've already explained this to you at least 1000 times.

Facebook has no competitors, moron.

No they are not. Publishers pay people to write things. Social media does not.

Facebook gives people in the media,government and entertainment industry special privileges . Their users are not “ equal” participants. Or even subjected to the same rules.

 

[BlueGin]

And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?

What do you think you’re suing them for?

For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?​

Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.

Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.

 

[mamooth]

This will cost Florida a lot of taxpayer money just to instantly lose all the lawsuits filed. And DeSantis knows this. But then, all of the Trump rubes here know it as well.

It is good that the Trumpists don't even try to hide their Stalinist nature now, being how bad they were at hiding it. They really do think that the government can force private citizens to publish party propaganda. It doesn't get more Stalinist than that.

 

[Dadoalex]

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.​

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.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

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....

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/

You think the EXTREMELY liberal John Morgan is going to take any of this crap on contingency?

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?

Sure they will, once somebody wins one. Then the flood gates will open. Bye Bye Facebook.

Riiiight.
This stinking pile never makes it past the first legal test.
Bank it!

I've never seen any convincing evidence that conservatives care about the constitution.

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.

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.

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.

I wouldn't be calling anyone stupid, if I were you. Your stupidity is mind boggling.

I'll help.

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.

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.

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.

You mean if Democrats were using FB, Twitter and the rest to provoke the violent overthrow of the US government and got dumped they'd be complaining?
Try another scenario,
You know, one that matches actual factual events.

When a Dem Senator was accused of sexual stuff cause he took a joke photo he resigned.
When Trump was accused and paid off a stripper he banged while married with an infant child...YOU ELECTED HIM PRESIDENT.

You've no call for "Righteous Indignation."

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

It’s the exact same issue given the civil liability is for damages caused by deplatforming individuals.

No, they are talking about the part where they make facebook allow all political candidates to have a page. Can't ban them.

Individuals who are blocked or have content removed without effective TOS notice or consistent TOS application have a cause of action against Facebook. They did NOT address THAT issue.

It’s the same issue. You can’t hide a violation of their constitutional rights behind a civil liability. That violation of constitutional rights is the same whether you’re assigning fines or making a civil liability.

NOTHING about that law prevents Facebook from censoring whatever Facebook wants.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

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."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It’s the exact same issue given the civil liability is for damages caused by deplatforming individuals.

No, they are talking about the part where they make facebook allow all political candidates to have a page. Can't ban them.

Individuals who are blocked or have content removed without effective TOS notice or consistent TOS application have a cause of action against Facebook. They did NOT address THAT issue.

It’s the same issue. You can’t hide a violation of their constitutional rights behind a civil liability. That violation of constitutional rights is the same whether you’re assigning fines or making a civil liability.

Bunk.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

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."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

What harm to whom?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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?

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."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

Not allowing individuals to have their safe space? That one puzzles me too.

 

[BlueGin]

If somebody publishes on Facebook their opinions on whether the COVID vaccines are safe, and Facebook decides that the content is "false" and removes it, no reasonable person can sit here and claim that Facebook is NOT developing content.

Ah I see the confusion.

Facebook is actually both at different times. They develop their own content but they don’t develop the content others submit. That’s always been true.

They put disclaimers on posts they don’t agree with. That is “ developing content” on other users posts.

 

[colfax_m]

And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?

What do you think you’re suing them for?

For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?​

Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.

Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.

Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.

 

[colfax_m]

NOTHING about that law prevents Facebook from censoring whatever Facebook wants.

That’s a silly statement. The law creates fines and liability for such actions which is obviously an attempt to prevent them from exercising their rights.

It’s like saying the law doesn’t prevent you from speeding but we will fine you for doing so.

 

[colfax_m]

Bunk

I’m sorry, but your participation in this topic has done little more than to demonstrate your own ignorance. It would be less annoying if you hadn’t had it explained to you repeatedly.