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

[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!

huh? how does it do that

Try reading.
I'm sure there are site with the bill's details.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Because the law creates, from whole cloth, a "cause of action" that didn't exist before. So you can't just pretend this is about "allowing" people to sue them. It creates a new reason why they can sue them. It's setting them up for "punishment" because they banned Trump.

Congress creates new reasons for people to sue all the time.

"But all the other kids are doing it!"

What a colossal hypocrite!

 

[dblack]

Trumpsters rejoice!

At least one member of Congress thinks we need a government agency to regulate social media companies

During a hearing with tech CEOs, Rep. Peter Welch asked if they’d be open to a new federal agency focused on social media platforms.

www.vox.com

Fine, as long as it is bipartisan, and not controlled by Biden hacks for the social media companies.

You're a funny guy! Bipartisan! That's a hoot.

 

[protectionist]

It is interesting that a party that has a self-proclaimed aversion to regulation and equates any intervention in business as Communism has no problem taking what amount to ownership rights away from private businesses in this case.

Not everybody in their party. I'm against it because I don't like government getting over involved in business to start with no matter who it favors.

I wouldn't call regulating the shutting down of speech from the President of the United States (while China & Iran leaders speak freely) > "over involved"

 

[dblack]

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.

Because the law creates, from whole cloth, a "cause of action" that didn't exist before. So you can't just pretend this is about "allowing" people to sue them. It creates a new reason why they can sue them. It's setting them up for "punishment" because they banned Trump.

Congress creates new reasons for people to sue all the time.

"But all the other kids are doing it!"

What a colossal hypocrite!

Wow.......
heh, just wow.

 

[protectionist]

You're a funny guy! Bipartisan! That's a hoot.

what's so funny ?

 

[dblack]

It is interesting that a party that has a self-proclaimed aversion to regulation and equates any intervention in business as Communism has no problem taking what amount to ownership rights away from private businesses in this case.

Not everybody in their party. I'm against it because I don't like government getting over involved in business to start with no matter who it favors.

I wouldn't call regulating the shutting down of speech from the President of the United States (while China & Iran leaders speak freely) > "over involved"

No one shut down the speech of the President of the United States. That's just a lie. So, you know, shut the fuck up.

 

[dblack]

You're a funny guy! Bipartisan! That's a hoot.

what's so funny ?

You! You're a fucking senile moron.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Because the law creates, from whole cloth, a "cause of action" that didn't exist before. So you can't just pretend this is about "allowing" people to sue them. It creates a new reason why they can sue them. It's setting them up for "punishment" because they banned Trump.

Congress creates new reasons for people to sue all the time.

"But all the other kids are doing it!"

What a colossal hypocrite!

Wow.......
heh, just wow.

"Wow" what?

 

[protectionist]

You! You're a fucking senile moron.

So you have no answer to the question. You just proved YOU are the moron.

 

[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.

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

You really are incredibly stupid.

Of course. Laws don't say you can't pollute. They say that if the amount of pollution exceeds X then you get fined Y. Companies then make their business decisions. Coal fired generators or smelting plants, all the same. As permitted by the EPA regulations passed by Congress and affirmed by the SCOTUS. Under that damned General Welfare clause.

This piece of crap? Sorry. 1, 10, and expostfacto.

Wanna try another stupid analogy?

 

[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.

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

GROUP DUMBASS!

 

[meaner gene]

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products.

Exactly, moron. In other words, they can't be sued.

Exactly. Except for acts of congress, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

So unless you can show congress enacted a law to protect facebook, they can currently be sued by anybody for anything.

Fool !!!

 

[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.

You're a witless baboon.

Golly gee.
The tiny minded "conservative is beating his cheat and tossing his poop.

I think he wants to mate with me.

 

[meaner gene]

Congress creates new reasons for people to sue all the time.

Really, name three.

 

[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

Try reading.
I'm sure there are site with the bill's details.

i did.

i assume it’s the same website you went to to learn what a bill or attainer was...hahaha

 

[dblack]

You! You're a fucking senile moron.

So you have no answer to the question. You just proved YOU are the moron.

Heh.. ok.

 

[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

GROUP DUMBASS!

since when can’t govt regulate an entire group? they do it all the time, from the diary industry, to tobacco, clothes, booze, etc

 

[struth]

Congress creates new reasons for people to sue all the time.

Really, name three.

Ledbetter Act, Civil Rights Act, american disabilities act

 

[struth]

In the US, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

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

Shayn Proler from the Houston Fire Department is afraid of fire. He was reassigned to an office position so he would not have to come in direct contact with what scared him, but he wanted to remain in his former job in the fire suppression unit. He claimed his fear was a disability and that he was discriminated against because of his disability. His case made it to the Texas Supreme Court, which ruled there was no evidence Proler was discriminated against on account of a disability.

and he was able to bring that suit because the federal govt created a cause of action under the american disabilities act