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

[bripat9643]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

 

[jknowgood]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

Nope. So what? There are tens of thousands of people out there with valid cases against Facebook, Twitter and youTube. Steven Crowder is suing them right now.

I've been fact checked and said it was false when it was true. I hope south Carolina joins in. Then I could retire!

 

[colfax_m]

He doesn't because he will be cutting off his own dick.

Seriously overestimating the value of Florida to the world.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He doesn't because he will be cutting off his own dick.

Seriously overestimating the value of Florida to the world.

Then, why not just cut it off?

(you know the answer)

 

[Faun]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How fucking brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

And yet, they can't be. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

You can't have it both ways, moron. On the one hand you claim Facebook can be sued. On the other hand, you claime Facebook is a publisher that can edit its content any way it wants to.

Why are you blaming me for your ignorance?

By the definition, Facebook is not a common carrier.

Facebook is protected by rule 230.

2 immutable facts a fucking moron like you struggles to comprehend.

 

[colfax_m]

I think they should be labeled and regulated as such...I am not sure why the argument is so mind boggling

It’s incredibly mind boggling.

A common carrier moves items or information from one person to another for a fee.

A phone service is a common carrier. Moves phone calls from one person to another. An electric company is a common carrier. Moves electricity from the producer to the user.

Social media is nothing of the sort. It accepts information, formats it, stores it, publishes it, and then broadcasts it over the internet to anyone that accesses it.

They’re not passive. They’re not just “carrying” information. They’re storing and publishing it for the public. There is no way one could view them as a common carrier by the definition of the word.

 

[Faun]

You posted section 202. Not 230. You realize that different sections of law apply to different organizations.

Actually section 202 links to the definition of "common carrier" he's attempting to say applies to facebook.

But the definition linked to, says that common carrier are those "for hire".

He actually provided proof that facebook isn't a common carrier because they give away their access for free.

Advertisers do hire Facebook, moron.

This argument has already been shot down.

One thing is clear: you don't give a damn about the facts. You're looking for any reason to defeat this law because you want Facebook to censor conservatives.

Trump wasn't an advertiser, fucking moron.

Irrelevant, fucking moron

Nope, not irrelevant. Members are not hiring Facebook to carry transmit anything for them.

 

[bripat9643]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How fucking brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

And yet, they can't be. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

You can't have it both ways, moron. On the one hand you claim Facebook can be sued. On the other hand, you claime Facebook is a publisher that can edit its content any way it wants to.

Why are you blaming me for your ignorance?

By the definition, Facebook is not a common carrier.

Facebook is protected by rule 230.

2 immutable facts a fucking moron like you struggles to comprehend.

Those two statements contradict each other, moron. Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

 

[colfax_m]

Then, why not just cut it off?

Probably because they’ll defeat this in court and set precedent against future misinformed legislation.

Just my guess. I can’t read their minds.

 

[Faun]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

Nope. There's no mention of common carriers in those links.

 

[bripat9643]

I think they should be labeled and regulated as such...I am not sure why the argument is so mind boggling

It’s incredibly mind boggling.

A common carrier moves items or information from one person to another for a fee.

A phone service is a common carrier. Moves phone calls from one person to another. An electric company is a common carrier. Moves electricity from the producer to the user.

Social media is nothing of the sort. It accepts information, formats it, stores it, publishes it, and then broadcasts it over the internet to anyone that accesses it.

They’re not passive. They’re not just “carrying” information. They’re storing and publishing it for the public. There is no way one could view them as a common carrier by the definition of the word.

You just described a common carrier, moron. Phone companies do all the things you listed.

 

[colfax_m]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

Nope. There's no mention of common carriers in those links.

It’ll be, what, 30 more pages of this poster pretending it’s there?

 

[bripat9643]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

Nope. There's no mention of common carriers in those links.

I doesn't even matter. As I already explained, your taking both sides of the issue.

 

[colfax_m]

Phone companies do all the things you listed

Phone companies don’t store my phone calls and broadcast them to the public.

Dumb ass.

 

[bripat9643]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

Nope. There's no mention of common carriers in those links.

It’ll be, what, 30 more pages of this poster pretending it’s there?

FUAX lost the debate 60 pages ago, nimrod.

 

[Faun]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How fucking brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

And yet, they can't be. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

You can't have it both ways, moron. On the one hand you claim Facebook can be sued. On the other hand, you claime Facebook is a publisher that can edit its content any way it wants to.

Why are you blaming me for your ignorance?

By the definition, Facebook is not a common carrier.

Facebook is protected by rule 230.

2 immutable facts a fucking moron like you struggles to comprehend.

Those two statements contradict each other, moron. Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

Except they don't. The definition rules them out of the category of being a common carrier.

And they've prevailed in court under rule 230.

You're wrong with every post you make.

 

[colfax_m]

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers

Show me where common carriers is mentioned anywhere in Section 230, since you are claiming it "specifically" applies to them.

It's mentioned all through the Communications decency act, moron.

47 U.S. Code § 202 - Discriminations and preferences ​

(a) Charges, services, etc.​

​

It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.​

Good thing for Facebook and Twitter that doesn't apply to them.

If it doesn't apply to them, they why did Facebook cite it to defend themselves in a lawsuit?

As your links show, they didn't.

It shows they did, you lying piece of shit.

Nope. There's no mention of common carriers in those links.

It’ll be, what, 30 more pages of this poster pretending it’s there?

FUAX lost the debate 60 pages ago, nimrod.

Still waiting for you to show me where section 230 has any relationship to common carriers.

 

[bripat9643]

Phone companies do all the things you listed

Phone companies don’t store my phone calls and broadcast them to the public.

Dumb ass.

They sure do store your phone calls. It's called voice mail. And phone companies don't broadcast your phone calls.

Dumbass.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then, why not just cut it off?

Probably because they’ll defeat this in court and set precedent against future misinformed legislation.

Just my guess. I can’t read their minds.

That's pretty much their only hope.

But, cut off Florida and some competitor will fill the gap, and EVERYBODY will have a viable option.

Either way, I would love to hear your legal theories as to why Facebook will prevail on the user-end disclosure obligations under the Florida DTPA.

 

[bripat9643]

Great, quote the common carrier law stating that...

I think this answers that.

Spare me. I'm done with this idiocy.

He was done when he posted a link to an article that didn't show Facebook claimed they are a common carrier. Everything since then was just laughing at his idiocy.

https://www.engadget.com/2017-05-19-court-dismisses-facebook-lawsuit-israel-hamas-attacks.html​

​

The court, however, decided that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act grants Facebook immunity from lawsuits like this. That section states that services like Facebook can't be held responsible for their users' actions. The decision reads:​

LOL

The fucking moron posts his second link which says nothing about "common carriers."

Section 230 applies specifically to common carriers, and the lawsuit specifically mentioned Section 230.

How fucking brain damaged are you?

Howl as much as you want, the definition of a common carrier still does apply to Facebook.

That's right, which is why it can be sued.

And yet, they can't be, as your own links show.

No, it shows common carriers cannot be sued. Which are you claiming Facebook is, a common carrier of a publisher?

Either way, you and Facebook lose.

LOL

By definition of a common carrier, Facebook is not. So what did we lose?

Then Facebook can be sued, moron.

And yet, they can't be. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

You can't have it both ways, moron. On the one hand you claim Facebook can be sued. On the other hand, you claime Facebook is a publisher that can edit its content any way it wants to.

Why are you blaming me for your ignorance?

By the definition, Facebook is not a common carrier.

Facebook is protected by rule 230.

2 immutable facts a fucking moron like you struggles to comprehend.

Those two statements contradict each other, moron. Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?

Except they don't. The definition rules them out of the category of being a common carrier.

And they've prevailed in court under rule 230.

You're wrong with every post you make.

Yes, they do contradict each other. You would know that if you were capable of committing logic.

Now answer this question: Do you believe CNN can't be sued? WAPO?