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

[WinterBorn]

If a case is brought, and it stands, it will just mean that the companies will start excluding Floridians from being able to access their sites.

OK, but it will also mean that the social media companies will pay massive fines and/or lawsuit $$$$, as ordered by court judges. (see Post # 338)

If the companies want to appeal, they could bring it to the SCOTUS. I wouldn't bet on their chances.

According to the article, the fines would be up to $100,000. Before the first case is settled, the company would bar Floridians from accessing the site.

 

[meaner gene]

a state has jurisdiction over any business that does business in their state.

this law doesn’t infringe on their first amendment rights...they are free to make any statement they want

with that said, if the argument is that they are making statements by blocking post they disagree with, then they certainly will lose their 230 immunity

The definition of doing business requires they have at least "minimum contacts" in the state. Which may require a sizeable number of commercial sales within the state.

 

[protectionist]

It has nothing to do with it. FB and Twitter are not conducting business in Florida. That's all they have control over. And what computers do they have in Florida? I want to know their location.

Yes they are conducting business in Florida. I'm in Florida, and I can go to Twitter right this minute.

Right, you go to Twitter. You leave Florida (via a series of tubes called the internet) and travel to Twitter's website.

Judges will hear all this. Time will tell. If anyone wants to dismiss the Florida law or the federal one addressing Section 230, have at it.

Yep. And we have a pretty shitty Court. It could go your way. If it does, look for Democrats to make this federal law post haste. Like they did with Romneycare.

Democrars shemocrats. Primarily, this law will benefit conservatives, by stopping the social media oligarchs from censoring out conservatives, as they been doing (ex. President Trump)

 

[meaner gene]

Yes they are conducting business in Florida. I'm in Florida, and I can go to Twitter right this minute. What computers they have in Florida, doesn't matter. What matters is our computers with them, in our computers.

If you were paying twitter in order to view their tweets, they would be doing business in Florida. But if their site is merely "viewable" in another state, doesn't mean they're doing business there.
I can view russian websites, but unless they sell me a russian bride, they're not doing business in the USA.

 

[WinterBorn]

Apples and oranges. I don't know what the matters were, but I will bet my dollar to your dime they didn't sue these people because they violated a state law, unless the act was committed in that state.

So Florida decides they don't want Amazon to advertise or sell any Barack Obama books to their citizens. But Amazon can't do that. They have one site, not 50, one for each state. The only way to accommodate Florida is if they change their entire online catalog so nobody can buy Barack Obama books. Should one state have the power to do that? What about if like these social media outlets, they are international?

It's complete stupidity. Look.......if you disagree with Twitter or Facebook, cancel your membership. That's all. No court would even hear a case against FB or Twitter because states cannot write laws that control a company in another state.

I notice you're not talking about the SAFE TECH ACT limiting Section 230 immunity. That's US law.

Not yet it isn't.

 

[protectionist]

According to the article, the fines would be up to $100,000. Before the first case is settled, the company would bar Floridians from accessing the site.

You got it wrong. The LAWSUITS are up to $100,000 (per suit). The "fines" are another ballgame. They apply to political candidates, and are for where the censoring is deplatforming directed at candidates for Florida state offices. The Florida Election Commission will impose FINES of $250,000 per day, and $25,000 per day for de-platforming candidates for non-statewide offices.

Also, regarding barring Floridians, there may be somethng in the law on that too, pertaining to the discrimination clauses. Have you read the law ? It is in Post # 338 (link) and is pretty complex (22 pages).

Then there's the federal law too -the SAFE TECH ACT, limiting Section 230 immunity.

 

[meaner gene]

Democrars shemocrats. Primarily, this law will benefit conservatives, by stopping the social media oligarchs from censoring out conservatives, as they been doing (ex. President Trump)

Actually the law would protect liars, cheats and scoundrels. He would prevent a site from putting any controls over any reprehensible content they chose to post.

 

[protectionist]

Not yet it isn't.

No, but it will be, with support from both Democrats AND Republicans.

 

[protectionist]

Actually the law would protect liars, cheats and scoundrels. He would prevent a site from putting any controls over any reprehensible content they chose to post.

They would still have the controls they have. Only control they would lose, is being able to censor without good cause, as they have done to Trump, and some others. This isn't a "liars, cheats and scoundrels" scenario.

 

[protectionist]

Legally, the businesses are still based in other states. Twitter, Facebook and other sites are not in computers of Floridians. Floridians have their computers contact the computers in other states.

Tell it to the judge. Good luck.

Dinner time now. Bye kids.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I notice you're not talking about the SAFE TECH ACT limiting Section 230 immunity. That's US law.

That's because this topic is not about the Safe Tech Act. It's about a Governor wanting to dictate how an international company does it's business.

The STA is a federal thing, meaning that since they do operate in the US, they can be held to those standards because they are operating within the country. Our federal government has that jurisdiction.

Now if they moved out of the US to another country, let's say Canada, the US would not have the jurisdiction to enforce section 230 because that's out of their control.

The state of Florida can make law against citizens using various social media because they reside there. How they'd be able to enforce that, I don't know. The state can make law to prohibit internet providers (if it's possible) access to Facebook or Twitter within their state because those providers are operating in that state. But Florida cannot make law against a company in Silicon Valley as to what their TOS or practices are when it comes to politics.

 

[meaner gene]

They would still have the controls they have. Only control they would lose, is being able to censor without good cause, as they have done to Trump, and some others. This isn't a "liars, cheats and scoundrels" scenario.

Actually it is. If Trump posts that he won the presidency in 2020, he would be telling a lie that even the US supreme court has ruled saying it was not true.
Trump also libels election officials, accusing them of crimes, or malfeasance.

 

[dblack]

It has nothing to do with it. FB and Twitter are not conducting business in Florida. That's all they have control over. And what computers do they have in Florida? I want to know their location.

Yes they are conducting business in Florida. I'm in Florida, and I can go to Twitter right this minute.

Right, you go to Twitter. You leave Florida (via a series of tubes called the internet) and travel to Twitter's website.

Judges will hear all this. Time will tell. If anyone wants to dismiss the Florida law or the federal one addressing Section 230, have at it.

Yep. And we have a pretty shitty Court. It could go your way. If it does, look for Democrats to make this federal law post haste. Like they did with Romneycare.

Democrars shemocrats. Primarily, this law will benefit conservatives, by stopping the social media oligarchs from censoring out conservatives, as they been doing (ex. President Trump)

Depends on who's running the show at the time.

 

[WinterBorn]

I notice you're not talking about the SAFE TECH ACT limiting Section 230 immunity. That's US law.

That's because this topic is not about the Safe Tech Act. It's about a Governor wanting to dictate how an international company does it's business.

The STA is a federal thing, meaning that since they do operate in the US, they can be held to those standards because they are operating within the country. Our federal government has that jurisdiction.

Now if they moved out of the US to another country, let's say Canada, the US would not have the jurisdiction to enforce section 230 because that's out of their control.

The state of Florida can make law against citizens using various social media because they reside there. How they'd be able to enforce that, I don't know. The state can make law to prohibit internet providers (if it's possible) access to Facebook or Twitter within their state because those providers are operating in that state. But Florida cannot make law against a company in Silicon Valley as to what their TOS or practices are when it comes to politics.

So Twitter and Facebook and numerous other political sites would have a choice of moving overseas or losing control of their business? Doesn't sound like a tough choice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So Twitter and Facebook and numerous other political sites would have a choice of moving overseas or losing control of their business? Doesn't sound like a tough choice.

It's not for them. But if the federal government imposed various intrusive restrictions, they could do that. A state cannot pressure them out of the country.

 

[WinterBorn]

So Twitter and Facebook and numerous other political sites would have a choice of moving overseas or losing control of their business? Doesn't sound like a tough choice.

It's not for them. But if the federal government imposed various intrusive restrictions, they could do that. A state cannot pressure them out of the country.

If more states follow suit, it is a viable option for them.

 

[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.

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

LOL

You even admit the part I cut off is irrelevant. But I suppose you had to whine about something after embarrassing yourself like that.

 

[Faun]

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?

Fucking moron, Facebook's services are provided for their members. Their members pay nothing.

 

[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.

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.

Because one is a social media platform while the other is not.

You really should have known that without me telling you.

 

[Faun]

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?

It's not editing content. They flag fake news as such and ban members.