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

[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?"

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."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

Who does it single out?

 

[WEATHER53]

Of course it is a restriction of freedom of speech. It is outright stopping speech.

You forget to mention that they're only stopping speech on property that they own and operate.

So ? If I stab somebody on my front lawn, I don't get held accountable, because it's my lawn ? Twitter should be shitting a brick over this law, and the many state laws and US law that are coming up next.

It's just so incredibly frustrating that people are so fucking stupid about this topic.

People have a right to kick others off their property, don't they?

That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Except the law forbids them from banning politicians and news agencies.

They can challenge that in court without disrupting the other provisions.

Forgot that part, didn’t you.

No, how can I? That's a different fucking issue...for the 5th fucking time.

Admit it. You’ve abandon your principles of being pro-constitutional. You want the power the platforms have so you’re going to take it by force. Government always wants power.

This has very little to do with government force. This is simply liability under deceptive trade practices.

You keep wanting to make this about free speech. You keep forgetting that this is about deceptive trade.

 

[WinterBorn]

I remember when conservatives were all about smaller gov't and less gov't intrusion. Seems those days have gone.

 

[K9Buck]

I remember when conservatives were all about smaller gov't and less gov't intrusion. Seems those days have gone.

Nice rhetoric.

 

[protectionist]

It's just so incredibly frustrating that people are so fucking stupid about this topic.

People have a right to kick others off their property, don't they?

But this isn't just doing that. It is selectively shutting down free speech, based on nothing but personal preference.

 

[protectionist]

Once, long ago, you threatened to have someone on these forums arrested for calling you a dumbass (actually claimed the sheriff's dept had a warrant). And now you propose to protect free speech on private property?

I did, and I do. And you should too, if you believe in the US "Constitution and the laws of the United States" (Constitution Article 6, Section 2)

 

[protectionist]

No it is not. It will not stand up in court.

Well, how lucky we are to have your esteemed clairvoyance, and legal expertise at work here for us.

 

[protectionist]

I remember when conservatives were all about smaller gov't and less gov't intrusion. Seems those days have gone.

In life, nothing is absolute.

 

[protectionist]

Which they are free to do, just like colleges, just like an employer, just like your library, just like your local paper or news agency.

Unless there are laws against it, which is now the case.

Quite odd to see something being backed which puts the leaders of China and Iran above the president of the United States.

 

[protectionist]

rofl

no it's not, trumptard

It already has, TDS.

 

[CremeBrulee]

I didn't read through all the comments, but has someone come up with anything remotely plausible on how this can be enforced? As far I as I know the companies in question aren't based in Florida. I guess they can stop contracting with said companies. Other than that , doesn't seem like much of anything.

 

[protectionist]

That right can be restricted when you invite them in to begin with

True, like if you rent an apartment, and you take in a roommate. Once you accept the roommate in, he then has some rights to his existence in that apartment.

 

[protectionist]

I didn't read through all the comments, but has someone come up with anything remotely plausible on how this can be enforced? As far I as I know the companies in question aren't based in Florida. I guess they can stop contracting with said companies. Other than that , doesn't seem like much of anything.

If you own a business, and watch your profit/loss balances, it could seem like a lot.

As for how the law can be enforced, the Florida law provides a ceiling of $100,000 penalty per lawsuit, that judges have free reign to impose. The US Congress SAFE TECH ACT, limiting the scope of Section 230 immunity, thereby toughening up the 1996 Section 230 law, will have more ramification.

McEachin, Castor introduce the SAFE TECH Act to reform Section 230

Congressman A. Donald McEachin (VA-04) and Congresswoman Kathy Castor (FL-14) introduced the House companion bill of the SAFE TECH Act.

augustafreepress.com

 

[protectionist]

Federal law is different because they have the ability to classify FB or Twitter as they deem necessary. A state has no such authority and what's being proposed here is a law forbidding a company to remove posts that are not in line with what they think. They are free to do so since it's their site.

They WERE free before the enactment of this law. Now that can be held liable for up to $100,000 per lawsuit. And the plaintiffs can go judge-shopping. Could be this will wind up at the SCOTUS.

 

[protectionist]

Lol, I can already tell ya what will happen there. Florida won't be able to do shit to enforce it.

Oh, thanks so much Mr Legal Expertise. We'll all just stop the thread here now that we have your esteemed conclusion, which I'm sure is based entirely on the affidavits of every civil court judge who could possibly preside in the trials. Pheeeew!

 

[candycorn]

I didn't read through all the comments, but has someone come up with anything remotely plausible on how this can be enforced? As far I as I know the companies in question aren't based in Florida. I guess they can stop contracting with said companies. Other than that , doesn't seem like much of anything.

It isn't.

This is the judicial equivalent to the shrill screams of "We have affidavits". This law means as much as that blonde ditz's swearing there was cheating.... Nothing.

 

[struth]

There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.

maybe

but that doesn’t negate the fact that all that takes place on facebook and tweeter as well, and they shouldn’t be above the law and protected from liability

That's the point.. Facebook doesn't want the liability associated with lies, slander and bad medical advice. Trump needs to take that on himself.. He's trying to undermine the election process. Facebook doesn't want to be party to that.

Trump should take on the liability of his lies and conspiracy theories.

No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".

You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

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."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

haha it singles out nobody

nor punishes anyone without them being found in violation via due process

 

[protectionist]

It isn't.

This is the judicial equivalent to the shrill screams of "We have affidavits". This law means as much as that blonde ditz's swearing there was cheating.... Nothing.

You know nothing of the law. I hope you have no vulnerable assets.

 

[candycorn]

It isn't.

This is the judicial equivalent to the shrill screams of "We have affidavits". This law means as much as that blonde ditz's swearing there was cheating.... Nothing.

You know nothing of the law. I hope you have no vulnerable assets.

The law was something the governor of your state passed to impress the dumb and clueless. It's little wonder you think it will amount to something.