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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I don't know that any court would hear the case yet alone rule in Florida's favor. I think if it came down to that DeSantis would just be wasting his taxpayers money. As much as I like DeSantis, this is dictatorship 101. Twitter and Facebook are not local, they are worldwide, and since it's impossible to cater to the demands of each country or state, what this would do in effect is give states the right to tell these companies how to run their business, just like unions did years ago that chased many of our companies out of the country.

 

[Godboy]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

If you want to have your left wing social media operating in Florida, you have to follow Florida's rules. If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, you can be sued.

 

[Godboy]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

The rules arent being equally applied. That is the issue and now they will be sued for it.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

Thank God for free-market small government solutions.....

This will put DeSantis over the top when it comes to being the 2024 GOP Presidential candidate...

Trumpers love theater...because that is what this legislation is...theater....

He already knows it would be struck down in court....

 

[Godboy]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

Good luck imposing laws on companies in other states.

Good luck getting Florida to allow your social media to operate in their state. You think they cant block social media sites in Florida? They wont need to anyway, since now they will just legally sue them for every infraction. Social media wont fuck around in Florida now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

The point is freedom of speech only applies to government, nothing outside of government. It's government that can't stop you from speaking. Anybody else can. If Twitter made a new policy that nothing Republican or conservative will be allowed on their site, there is nothing you can do about it except quit using Twitter. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to them because Twitter is not a government entity.

 

[Godboy]

You either agree or you can't use their essential services. Some choice huh?

What is unfair or unjust about a company requiring its patrons to adhere to their TOS?

They shouldnt discriminate. Discrimination is illegal.

 

[Godboy]

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?

Political discrimination.

 

[Godboy]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

its not so much about the rules as much as its about the selective way they enforce them,,

they created this,,

And you would have to prove a bias. That would be difficult, if not impossible to do.

No it wouldnt. All you have to do is show left wing Tweets that are identical to Tweets that right wingers were banned for. There are endless examples of this taking place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you want to have your left wing social media operating in Florida, you have to follow Florida's rules. If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, you can be sued.

There is no way to stop it. It's not like your cable or satellite companies where they can turn off certain devices. How about DeSantis passing a law making it illegal for people in Florida to go to Twitter or FaceBook? My, that wouldn't sit well with the voters, now would it?

 

[Godboy]

If you want to have your left wing social media operating in Florida, you have to follow Florida's rules. If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, you can be sued.

There is no way to stop it. It's not like your cable or satellite companies where they can turn off certain devices. How about DeSantis passing a law making it illegal for people in Florida to go to Twitter or FaceBook? My, that wouldn't sit well with the voters, now would it?

They will stop it themselves once they start losing millions of dollars to lawsuits every day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They will stop it themselves once they start losing millions of dollars to lawsuits every day.

They just won't pay it. Then Florida will have to spend millions on litigation which I'm sure most of the citizens won't favor, because no court in the country would enforce such fines.

 

[WinterBorn]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

The rules arent being equally applied. That is the issue and now they will be sued for it.

Proving that will be exceedingly difficult.

 

[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.

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.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

 

[dblack]

Freedom of speech?

Nah. It's more fundamental than that. Something so fundamental, the founders saw no reason to call it out in the Constitution. We're talking about the freedom to say "no" - with or without a "good reason", with or without "transparency" or "consistency".

 

[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.

Your post is self-contradictory. First you say that they can’t discriminate and then you say they can ban anyone they want.

Facebook is not ATT. Not even close. ATT is a common carrier, not a publisher. Facebook is not a common carrier, it is a publisher. They’re entirely different.

Regulations for communication cannot violate the first amendment. This does.

They can ban people, as long as they comply with the law. They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to. Can AT&T refuse to allow Dems to use their phone serves? Should they be allowed to?

 

[struth]

Freedom of speech?

Nah. It's more fundamental than that. Something so fundamental, the founders saw no reason to call it out in the Constitution. We're talking about the freedom to say "no" - with or without a "good reason", with or without "transparency" or "consistency".

Sorry....the Govt can regulate an industry and say they can't do that. The Civil Rights Acts are proof of that.

 

[Faun]

Who canceled Parlor's hosting? The original Parlor is gone now, and has been replaced with site that complies with lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.

I just went to their site and it's still there. Never joined up, but from what I understand, they don't take political sides. Liberals and conservatives have the ability to post virtually anything they want.

The original site is gone now. It has been replaced with a site that looks similar, but it complies to lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.

So not true. It's the same site with the same URL. All that changed was their webhost.

 

[colfax_m]

They can't discriminate based on idelogy alone, nor should they be allowed to.

Why not? It’s their website.

 

[mdk]

This virtue signaling and unconstitutional nonsense will be laughed out of court. It's about serving red meat to the base and all the taxpayers of Florida get to pay for it.