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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't understand how tort law works, do you?

Pretty sure you still have to have an argument that is constitutional.

Or does tort law not care about the constitution?

The law is presumed constitutional until challenged. REMEMBER?

 

[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.

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

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

 

[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.

It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.

Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.

It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.

If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.

Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.

Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.

Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.

Good luck proving intent.

 

[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.

What harm to whom?

To FB and the rest.
Do try to follow along.

 

[colfax_m]

You don't understand how tort law works, do you?

Pretty sure you still have to have an argument that is constitutional.

Or does tort law not care about the constitution?

The law is presumed constitutional until challenged. REMEMBER?

I don’t have to presume anything. I know it’s unconstitutional.

 

[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.

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

It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.

Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.

It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.

If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.

Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.

Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.

Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.

Good luck proving intent.

Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.

 

[Coyote]

But since their censorship has a profound effect on society at large, is it "morally" acceptable?

Ultimately, the U.S. Constitution is our nation's governing document and it's not based on what is "morally acceptable". Anyone that tries to sue YouTube, etc., is going to have to demonstrate how they are in violation of law and then Florida's new law will have to withstand the scrutiny of the SCOTUS and in how it relates to the Consitution.

So what is the legal argument?

How about that cyberspace is the ultimate virtual public square, worthy of all the freedoms, protections, and responsibilities that apply to any other public square?

Then maybe you should do it on your own dime - create your own platform and not use someone else's. You could then set your own ToS.

 

[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?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't understand how tort law works, do you?

Pretty sure you still have to have an argument that is constitutional.

Or does tort law not care about the constitution?

The law is presumed constitutional until challenged. REMEMBER?

I don’t have to presume anything. I know it’s unconstitutional.

You don't understand legal presumprions, do you?

Back to law school.

 

[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.

huh? not sure what you are talking about

Look up.
It's right there.

 

[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.

Disclosure of private information without permission? Ummm, yeah. That is illegal, at least here in Texas.

You mean like when Trump told everyone Lindsey Graham’s phone number?

Yes.

Consider me deflected.

Intent to harm is a bit of a sticking point.

 

[colfax_m]

You don't understand how tort law works, do you?

Pretty sure you still have to have an argument that is constitutional.

Or does tort law not care about the constitution?

The law is presumed constitutional until challenged. REMEMBER?

I don’t have to presume anything. I know it’s unconstitutional.

You don't understand legal presumprions, do you?

Back to law school.

Sure do. But I’m not a court. I’m a person who is allowed to have an opinion. You’re deflecting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.

Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.

It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.

If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.

Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.

Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.

Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.

Good luck proving intent.

Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.

At this point, these fools are just hammering away at the keys because they are so fucking pissed off that their free speech work-around is getting fucked over and Facebook is gonna have to start being legit or get sued. They are so fucking pissed and I love it. I hope they all shit they're fucking pants.

 

[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.

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

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Disclosure of private information without permission? Ummm, yeah. That is illegal, at least here in Texas.

You mean like when Trump told everyone Lindsey Graham’s phone number?

Yes.

Consider me deflected.

Intent to harm is a bit of a sticking point.

Well, what could possibly be the other intent? Of course Trump was wrong to give that out, if it was intended to be private.

I'm not one who kisses the ass of "dear leader" because he is allegedly on "my team."

Somebody fucks up I'll let them know. ANYBODY.

 

[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?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

And they are not. Social media is not just Facebook.

Unless now you are admitting that they are a complete monopoly?

 

[protectionist]

If I were Twitter I’d ban Desantes just for fun.

It's getting a lot bigger than Desantis and Florida. legislation is cooking up in the Senate with Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) et al in the Commerce Committee. Don't presume it's just a Republican proposal. Lots of Democrats have had their skirmishes with social media hotshots too.

Democrats call for Congress to rein in, break up Big Tech

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to rein in Big Tech, possibly forcing Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple to break up their businesses, while making it harder for them to acquire others and imposing new rules to safeguard competition.

apnews.com

Warner, Hirono, Klobuchar Announce the SAFE TECH Act to Reform Section 230

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) announced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act to reform Section 230 and allow social media companies to be held accountable for...

www.warner.senate.gov

 

[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.

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

It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.

Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.

It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.

If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.

Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.

Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.

Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.

Good luck proving intent.

Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.

At this point, these fools are just hammering away at the keys because they are so fucking pissed off that their free speech work-around is getting fucked over and Facebook is gonna have to start being legit or get sued. They are so fucking pissed and I love it. I hope they all shit they're fucking pants.

Exactly. They know what Facebook,Twitter and YouTube do is against 230 protections and they dont care because it benefits their ideology. They couldn’t care less about free speech or the “ constitution”. They only care that these companies are going to face consequences for free speech violations against conservatives.

 

[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.

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

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

And they are not. Social media is not just Facebook.

Unless now you are admitting that they are a complete monopoly?

Asked and answered.
Read the thread.

 

[protectionist]

Freedom of speech only applies to government. Government can't stop your speech, but any private entity can. You can't go into work, tell your boss he's Fn ugly, and that's why his wife is probably Fn every convenient store clerk in the city. He'll fire you.

That's now. Which is why legislation is appearing on state and federal levels, to address that issue, in the private sector.