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

[Faun]

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.

You realize DeSantis is primarily after Twitter and Facebook because they banned Trump, don't you? They're headquartered, in California.

 

[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.

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?

Tell me what you think Deceptive Trade Practices legislation is for.

Start there.

You can go look at Florida's Deceptive Trade Practices Act for starters.

I will wait for you to get caught up before we discuss this further.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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".

And Facebook et al still have the freedom to do so without transparency or consistency, but now individuals have a cause of action against Facebook if they do.

Freedom to act as they please is STILL AVAILABLE.

 

[struth]

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

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

 

[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.

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?

Here, colfax. I'll help you get up to speed:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0500-0599/0501/Sections/0501.203.html
(8) “Trade or commerce” means the advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise, of any good or service, or any property, whether tangible or intangible, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value, wherever situated. “Trade or commerce” shall include the conduct of any trade or commerce, however denominated, including any nonprofit or not-for-profit person or activity.

 

[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?

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

Try again.

To be more precise, members who are running for public office. The law would allow Florida to fine Twitter for banning such members for more than 14 days.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

To be more precise, members who are running for public office. The law would allow Florida to fine Twitter for banning such members for more than 14 days.

You know that is not the real goal of the legislation, right? That's just so you'll get your panties in a wad and scream and cry about that, instead of focusing on the other parts.

 

[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?

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?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

 

[Faun]

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

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

There is a societal need to allow all parties to express their opinions. That's why the First Amendment exists.

There is no Amendment that gives government the authority to force warning labels on cigarettes. People are smart enough to understand that cigarettes are bad for you.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

 

[bripat9643]

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

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

 

[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?

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?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident fucking moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

 

[bripat9643]

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".

The government flushed that right down the toilet a long time ago.

 

[Faun]

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

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but you're utterly refusing to quote them saying that.

You're a proven liar and it appears you're reluctant to quote them because you're lying again.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident fucking moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

Says the facts, douchebag. You are referring to the difference between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Why not? It’s their website.

For the same reason AT&T can not.

Wrong.

Right. They claim to be a "common carrier," short bus. That means they aren't allowed to discriminate.

You keep saying that but you're utterly refusing to quote them saying that.

You're a proven liar and it appears you're reluctant to quote them because you're lying again.

Wrong. I posted the lawsuit where the claimed they were exempt because they were a common carrier.

 

[bripat9643]

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".

They have no such right. They claim to be a "common carrier."

 

[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?

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?

Sorry but ideology is not a protected class.

There's nothing in the Constitution about "protected classes," so all laws that refer to them are blatantly unconstitutional

Says you, the USMB's resident fucking moron. Laughing at you is the U.S. Supreme Court which has repeatedly upheld such laws.

Says the facts, douchebag. You are referring to the difference between what SCOTUS says and what the Constitution says.

LOLOL

Fucking moron, it appears you lack the knowledge of the role they play in terms of the Constitution.

Needless to say, their opinions matter. Yours? Not at all.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Facebook won huge lawsuit because it claimed to be a "common carrier," so you are full of shit.