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

[bripat9643]

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

I see no reason why it shouldn't stand. Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...so this really has nothing to do with Trump, other then in your weird mind

How come you won't answer?

How much does it cost to join and post on Facebook?

Advertisers pay Facebook, moron. How many times do you have to be told?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not me that's dense, idiot.

You seem ignorant of the fact that we’ve been saying OVER AND OVER that Facebook isn’t a common carrier.

Then it can be sued, moron

You’re also ignorant to the fact that common carrier status has nothing to do with section 230.

Puhleeze. It has everything to do with Section 230. Do you think every website on the internet is immune from lawsuits?

 

[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?

Of course they can, and have been, sued. What a stupid question.

Then so can Facebook, numskull.

You're a fucking moron for not knowing the difference between CNN and Facebook.

...and fucking moron, you yourself already posted at least two links showing that Facebook could not be sued thanks to Section 230 protections.

I do know the difference. You don't. Tell us why one can be sued and the other can't.

 

[bripat9643]

What's your point, asshole?

You asshole, me Tarzan.

You brain damaged retard.

 

[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.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.multipro.com%2Fbstopham%2FYou%2520So%2520Stupid.gif&f=1&nofb=1

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.

Conservatives want to sue FB because FB exercised its First Amendment right to freedom of association and freedom of the press to edit its content as it sees fit.

It has no such right if it edits its content, moron. How may times do you have to be told that? Does the phone company have a right to determine which phone calls go through?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

​

Trump sycophant DeSantis signed a bill into ‘law’ that’s clearly a violation of the First Amendment and is further confirmation of the authoritarian right’s contempt for the Constitution.

It does no such thing, NAZI.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Facebook and the court said so, moron. Not for content, anyway.

 

[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.

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.

Your inane point has already been addressed.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

hahaa it’s not a bill or attainer because it’s not convicting anyone of a crime

I'm sure your opinion is well respected in toilets around the country but it is wrong.

haha it’s not an opinion...it’s the definition

Here's your definition

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

Try reading.

It doesn't single out an individual or group, turd.

It not only singles out a group for punishment is selectively excludes a member of that group.

Just how stupid are you anyway?
They're bragging about how this bit of pandering is going to bring those nasty internet companies in line. How can you be so stupid as to claim the bill is not doing what its creators are claiming credit for it doing?

Geez, what a maroon!

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

Who does it single out?

My god you are stupid.
Internet platforms and information providers.
You know, just like DuhDumbass bragged.

Try reading some news sometime.

 

[struth]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

hahaa it’s not a bill or attainer because it’s not convicting anyone of a crime

I'm sure your opinion is well respected in toilets around the country but it is wrong.

haha it’s not an opinion...it’s the definition

Here's your definition

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

Try reading.

It doesn't single out an individual or group, turd.

It not only singles out a group for punishment is selectively excludes a member of that group.

Just how stupid are you anyway?
They're bragging about how this bit of pandering is going to bring those nasty internet companies in line. How can you be so stupid as to claim the bill is not doing what its creators are claiming credit for it doing?

Geez, what a maroon!

huh? how does it do that

 

[meaner gene]

In the US, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

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

Jobless man, 41, sues parents in bid to get them to pay 'maintenance' for life

A JOBLESS son aged 41 is suing his parents in a bid to force them to pay him “maintenance” for life. Faiz Siddiqui claims he is completely dependent on his wealthy mum and dad. This is despite bein…

www.the-sun.com

A JOBLESS son aged 41 is suing his parents in a bid to force them to pay him “maintenance” for life.

For 20 years, his Dubai-based parents have let him live rent-free at a £1million flat they own near London’s Hyde Park.
Mum Rakshanda, 69, and dad Javed, 71, currently give him more than £400 a week.

 

[bripat9643]

In the US, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

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

Jobless man, 41, sues parents in bid to get them to pay 'maintenance' for life

A JOBLESS son aged 41 is suing his parents in a bid to force them to pay him “maintenance” for life. Faiz Siddiqui claims he is completely dependent on his wealthy mum and dad. This is despite bein…

www.the-sun.com

A JOBLESS son aged 41 is suing his parents in a bid to force them to pay him “maintenance” for life.

For 20 years, his Dubai-based parents have let him live rent-free at a £1million flat they own near London’s Hyde Park.
Mum Rakshanda, 69, and dad Javed, 71, currently give him more than £400 a week.

Which proves nothing. England isn't the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

Who does it single out?

My god you are stupid.
Internet platforms and information providers.
You know, just like DuhDumbass bragged.

Try reading some news sometime.

So laws against air pollution from coal fired generators are "singling out" utility companies?

You really are incredibly stupid.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

haha it singles out nobody

nor punishes anyone without them being found in violation via due process

Does
and Does

So there.

Geez.

 

[busybee01]

Try reading DeSantis law.

I am a big fan of DeSantis and I like the spirit of the law, I'm just not sure of its constitutionality.

Legally speaking, why shouldn't YouTube be permitted to ban content that it dislikes?

"Legally", they should be able to.

But since their censorship has a profound effect on society at large, is it "morally" acceptable?

Is it "The right thing" to do ?

Yes it is. Social media companies have free apeech rights as well. This is what socialists do. They illegally 6take over companies.

 

[struth]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

haha it singles out nobody

nor punishes anyone without them being found in violation via due process

Does
and Does

So there.

Geez.

show me where in the law it singles any one out specifically

 

[protectionist]

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

What's the problem ? A forum engages in arbitrary censorship, breaks the law, and gets sued.

 

[busybee01]

Try reading DeSantis law.

I am a big fan of DeSantis and I like the spirit of the law, I'm just not sure of its constitutionality.

Legally speaking, why shouldn't YouTube be permitted to ban content that it dislikes?

Monopoly ....

Compsnies can sue for damages ... lost revenue due to the big tech monopoly censorship.

Up to 100k per case.

This has NOTHING to do with piddly ass forums like this one.

It has more to do with these big tech outlets banning congressional, presidential canddidates base upon bias.

Try it and the law will be thrown out. Anyone who sues will get nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

govt can create cause of action

Not directed at harming a specific individual.

this law isn’t directed at a specific individual

A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

ok...and how does that appply here?

Legislative act...check
Singles out...check
fines=punishment w/o trial...check and Check.

haha it singles out nobody

nor punishes anyone without them being found in violation via due process

Does
and Does

So there.

Geez.

You're a witless baboon.