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]

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

You also have the right to kick people off your property based solely on personal preference.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Deceptive trade? There’s no trading going on here. People use these services for free. As for the TOS, people are welcome to read it and that has been challenged in court. They’ve always lost. The TOS isn’t the issue. This isn’t about trade practices.

Florida is putting unconstitutional limits on the freedom of speech. Whether they’re doing it by fining companies for not promoting their political candidates or whether they’re doing it by creating a civil tort for not following their new rules. You can’t claim damages from an action which is constitutionally protected. You can’t assess fines on behavior that is constitutionally protected.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Deceptive trade? There’s no trading going on here.

Okay. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
PERIOD!!!

I don't have time, nor do I care enough to educate you on deceptive trade practices. NOBODY who understand deceptive trade practices legislation would EVER say your comment above.

 

[struth]

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.

Deceptive trade? There’s no trading going on here. People use these services for free. As for the TOS, people are welcome to read it and that has been challenged in court. They’ve always lost. The TOS isn’t the issue. This isn’t about trade practices.

Florida is putting unconstitutional limits on the freedom of speech. Whether they’re doing it by fining companies for not promoting their political candidates or whether they’re doing it by creating a civil tort for not following their new rules. You can’t claim damages from an action which is constitutionally protected. You can’t assess fines on behavior that is constitutionally protected.

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

For example, Govt puts all sorts of limits on the Tobacco Industry as well as booze...limits on where they can put ads, even down to the types of ads they create. They also even require them to put langauge on their packages.

There is nothing unConstitutional about that sort of regulations.

 

[colfax_m]

Deceptive trade? There’s no trading going on here.

Okay. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!!!
PERIOD!!!

I don't have time, nor do I care enough to educate you on deceptive trade practices. NOBODY who understand deceptive trade practices legislation would EVER say your comment above.

You’re flailing and this little outburst shows how shitty your argument is.
“Waaa!!!! I’m right and instead of making an argument I’m going to call you names!!!!”

Grow up, asshole.

This is 100% about government coming to take the power away from private industry. If the roles were reversed, you’d be threatening to shoot people again.

What exactly is being traded when someone posts on Facebook?

 

[colfax_m]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

 

[evenflow1969]

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!

Your about as dumb as a box of rocks aren't you. Hilarious. You ate obviously one of the dumb fucks that think the legislation is actually meaningful. Unbelievable the stupidity of g he Trumpster. Wow

 

[Faun]

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

You mean like some are only silenced on Twitter or Facebook?

 

[struth]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

 

[Faun]

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?

Faun screams Republicans suck at every other employee and customer who wears anything red. His boss is fine with that, right Faun?

You poor kazzer, you're delusional. WTF does wearing red have anything to do with anything. As far as my employer, I keep my work separate from my politics.

 

[colfax_m]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

 

[Faun]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

How does forcing Twitter to allow members to post whatever they want, enhance public safety?

 

[Faun]

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

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

And dblack doesn't see a problem

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

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

Facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want. But how can facebook and their cabal in a free society silence others?

Yes, it is about free markets, and that one political party can silence the only other major political party in a free society shows we have real issues being a free society

because they can...they aren’t the govt...the first amendment only applies to the govt

with that said we are free not to use their service

and we should be able to sue them for liability for their content that they publish

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

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

It's not Parlor and Google didn't shut them down. How many times do you need this explained to you until you learn?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It could be, but I doubt they'd hear the case.

The fact of the matter is you went to their site, Facebook or Twitter did not come to you. Another fact is nothing in your life depends on social media. Tens of millions of Americans don't use social media. My parents don't, my sister doesn't, and hell, my next door neighbor doesn't even own a computer or smart phone. Social media is not a necessity in life. It's recreational.

If this is allowed to be practiced, before you know it, it will spread and cause huge problems. For instance California might say Amazon is not allowed to advertise or sell Bill O'Reilly's latest book Killing Crazy Horse. Now if a Californian buys this book, the state will fine Amazon 100K for every book sold. Would you agree with that? What if President Trump decided to write a book and they did the same thing?

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

Still waiting for you to prove your claim that Facebook declared itself a common carrier.

 

[Faun]

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 think Facebook and Twitter are common carriers.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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

And dblack doesn't see a problem

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

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

Facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want. But how can facebook and their cabal in a free society silence others?

Yes, it is about free markets, and that one political party can silence the only other major political party in a free society shows we have real issues being a free society

because they can...they aren’t the govt...the first amendment only applies to the govt

with that said we are free not to use their service

and we should be able to sue them for liability for their content that they publish

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

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

It's not Parlor and Google didn't shut them down. How many times do you need this explained to you until you learn?

They don't learn. Look at the jumbled, confused mess of an argument some of these idiots are putting out there. They can't keep anything remotely complicated straight.

These guys have had their brains turned to mush by years of being spoon fed right wing tripe.

 

[Faun]

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

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

And dblack doesn't see a problem

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

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

Facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want. But how can facebook and their cabal in a free society silence others?

Yes, it is about free markets, and that one political party can silence the only other major political party in a free society shows we have real issues being a free society

because they can...they aren’t the govt...the first amendment only applies to the govt

with that said we are free not to use their service

and we should be able to sue them for liability for their content that they publish

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

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

It's not Parlor and Google didn't shut them down. How many times do you need this explained to you until you learn?

They don't learn. Look at the jumbled, confused mess of an argument some of these idiots are putting out there. They can't keep anything remotely complicated straight.

These guys have had their brains turned to mush by years of being spoon fed right wing tripe.

They did it to themselves and then they get angry at everyone else for not falling for their bullshit.

 

[struth]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

How does forcing Twitter to allow members to post whatever they want, enhance public safety?

I don't think it does, nor does this law require Twitter to do that.

Try again.

 

[struth]

Huh? Govt can regulate businesses. That is not unConstitutional.

The regulations have to comply with the constitution. You can’t pass a regulation that impinges their constitutional rights.

what right is being impinged?

You don't think the tobacco company took issue with the fact the Obama admin was making them put massive graphics on their packages telling people it will kill them? Of course they did. But the Courts said, they had to do it...and it didn't violate their first amendment rights.

So you really think Facebook's rights are being violated here when all the law says is that hey....you got to provide a reason that you banned someone? and someone can sue you if they feel they were unfairly treated? or that you can't ban one political canidate over the other?

Freedom of speech.

Government has a societal need to promote public health by including safety warnings on products. There is no such need for Facebook to keep up anyone else's speech.

As for tobacco, depending on the size, type and character of the graphics, they have indeed been struck down as violating the first amendment in 2012 in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA.

Freedom of speech? Well, as you know that is not unlimited. Regardless though, Facebook is free to say whatever they want...just like AT&T...what they can't do is discriminate against consumers, and aren't above being regulated Public health is very important, but so is commerce v communication...hence why we regulate it as well.

Nothing is even keeping Facebook from banning someone, they can...all the law requires is that they be transparent about it.