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

[dblack]

Facebook is the Press now? You do realize the Press can be sued right? The NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Fox etc....

If they can be sued why can't Facebook?

What makes you think Facebook can't be sued?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only if someone tries to sue. I think most lawyers would see the problems with pursuing such a lawsuit.

As would the courts.

 

[meaner gene]

But the point was the opinion issued and where the Court is heading in the future when these cases come up...not looking good for Facebook and the DNC's propaganda ministry

No the opinion pointed to where Thomas was heading. And even in his opinion he said that twitter, facebook etc, are NOT common carriers.

Citation:

Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation

 

[struth]

But the point was the opinion issued and where the Court is heading in the future when these cases come up...not looking good for Facebook and the DNC's propaganda ministry

No the opinion pointed to where Thomas was heading. And even in his opinion he said that twitter, facebook etc, are NOT common carriers.

Citation:

Even if digital platforms are not close enough to common carriers, legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation

hahaha i am not sure how you get that out of your quote?

He literally is saying...EVEN IF....they should treat them as public acccomdations....he clearly is signaling the days of Facebook et al running amok are coming to an end

 

[struth]

Facebook is the Press now? You do realize the Press can be sued right? The NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Fox etc....

If they can be sued why can't Facebook?

What makes you think Facebook can't be sued?

I was responding to the poster......did you not read the post I was responding to? I clearly think they can...and moreover, should be held liable if they are...they shouldn't be granted special treatment

 

[dblack]

Facebook is the Press now? You do realize the Press can be sued right? The NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Fox etc....

If they can be sued why can't Facebook?

What makes you think Facebook can't be sued?

I was responding to the poster......did you not read the post I was responding to? I clearly think they can...and moreover, should be held liable if they are...they shouldn't be granted special treatment

Then you agree that the DeSantis handjob law was overreaching nonsense?

 

[struth]

Facebook is the Press now? You do realize the Press can be sued right? The NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Fox etc....

If they can be sued why can't Facebook?

What makes you think Facebook can't be sued?

I was responding to the poster......did you not read the post I was responding to? I clearly think they can...and moreover, should be held liable if they are...they shouldn't be granted special treatment

I'm asking, under the law previous to the DeSantis' handjob law, why do you think Facebook couldn't be sued?

I have no idea what handjob law you are talking about or what that has to do with facebook.

Facebook could be sued...that's not the point, but they have immunity under Federal law for liable for liability for their content etc.

All this law does is says, look you got to be transparent with your actions in the State of Fl, and if you aren't, the people of FL will have a cause of action against you.

 

[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.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(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.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

 

[meaner gene]

common carriers, [/B]legislatures might still be able to treat digital platforms like places of public accommodation[/I]

hahaha i am not sure how you get that out of your quote?

He literally is saying...EVEN IF....they should treat them as public acccomdations....he clearly is signaling the days of Facebook et al running amok are coming to an end

Let me help you with common english. What Thomas wants is a "wish" a "hope" a "what if". It also means the current reality is just the opposite.

So Thomas is saying that digital platforms are NOT COMMON CARRIERS, and are NOT PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

And of course Thomas concludes what he thinks has no legal power.

Citation:

As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters ... raise interesting and important questions. This petition, unfortunately, affords us no opportunity to confront them.

In short, .... Nevermind.

 

[dblack]

I have no idea what handjob law you are talking about or what that has to do with facebook.

FL 7072 is about enacting Trump's "revenge" on FB and Twitter. Do you deny it?

Facebook could be sued...that's not the point, but they have immunity under Federal law for liable for liability for their content etc.

Exactly. And FL 7072 does nothing to change that.

All this law does is says, look you got to be transparent with your actions in the State of Fl, and if you aren't, the people of FL will have a cause of action against you.

Why do FB and Twitter have to be "transparent" when no one else does? Why do Disney and Comcast get a pass?

 

[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.

Wrong.

you think AT&T can discriminate? Sorry...https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I

(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.

LOLOLOLOL

So you think Facebook is a common carrier, huh?

Of course they are

What Is a Common Carrier? Definition, How They Work, and Examples

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transport goods or people. Unlike private carrier services, it is available to anyone willing to pay its fee.

www.investopedia.com

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities.

After YOU posted the definition of a common carrier, which includes...

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

... I can only presume you refuse to answer my question about how much does it cost to post on Facebook because that caused you to realize your own post with that definition utterly destroyed your claim that Facebook is a common carrier.

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

Here is the remainder of the quote for those paying attention at home "The term is also used to describe telecommunications services and public utilities."

Facebook et al aren't considered them now under the law, the issue presented and being discussed is treating them like one

 

[meaner gene]

A common carrier is defined by U.S. law as a private or public entity that transports goods or people from one place to another for a fee. ​

why did you cut off my quote? I find you lost all cred when you did that.

After it required "for a fee" to be an essential part of being a "common carrier", and that facebook does not charge a fee to it's users, the "common carrier" definition does not match the description of facebook.

 

[meaner gene]

why did you cut off my quote?

Because like any statement with a required status clause, anything after not meeting that requirement means nothing.

It's like a child reading
All persons over the age of 18, must register with the selective service on or within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

Once he sees "over the age of 18" anything after that means nothing to him.

 

[meaner gene]

why did you cut off my quote?

If you don't reside in New York, and you see.

New Law: All residents of the state of New York must blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Would you care about the "blah blah blah"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Just as a side-note, it's kind of funny that this law has a special exemption for any company “that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex” of a certain size.

Because, you know, free speech. Or something.

So, Facebook buys a theme park. Problem solved.

But, this is a complete reach-around to Mouse Ears. No doubt about it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Let's cut the bullshit. No one expects this law to stand. It's just DeSantis giving Trump a handjob.

Parts of it probably will stand, but the politician thing is likely gone.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They can already be sued, dingleberry.

Not according to you, Colfax and the rest of the woke morons participating in this thread.

In the US, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

Exactly. And the FL handjob law doesn't change that.

This law makes surviving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action much easier. If anything.

 

[bripat9643]

So what's you point, moron?

You said the phone company doesn't broadcast.

That was DUMB .

They can already be sued, dingleberry.

Not according to you, Colfax and the rest of the woke morons participating in this thread.

In the US, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

No, users cannot sue common carriers for the material they carry.

 

[bripat9643]

Section 230 only protects them from being treated as a publisher of a third party's contend.

Which doesn't define them as a common carrier. So section 230 can't be used to either form the basis for, or support the facebook status for exposure as a common carrier under another section.

That's gobbledygook. If they aren't common carriers, then they can be sued. That's what section 230 says.

 

[bripat9643]

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Federal law is saying facebook is not a common carrier under Sec 200

Then it can be sued, moron

Not under section 230.

Section 230 only protects them from being treated as a publisher of a third party's contend.

When Facebook, et al, goes and starts editing or censoring content then they very well can be considered a publisher.
Fari Housing Council of San Fernado Valley v Roommates.com...highlighted the immunity is not absolute.

​

I've explained this 1000 times already, but the stubbornly refuse to get it.