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

That does not include a "right" to unilaterally breach contracts at will and be deceptive about it. Not a free speech issue.
There is no breach of contract. If there were, these people already would be able to win lawsuits with that claim.

It’s been a while since I looked at these cases but I’m pretty sure this argument has been tried before and failed.

If that really were the argument, this law isn’t necessary. It’s not and you probably know that. This is just the latest attempt at throwing the spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. It’s all pretextual. It’s all about revenge.
 
That's breech of contract and deceptive trade when done BEFORE a change in the TOS.
Where in the TOS does it say they can’t take down content they deem problematic after the fact? Or change the TOS for that matter?

It doesn’t. In fact, the TOS say the opposite. It’s not deceptive and it’s not breech of contract.

If it were, there’d be enough grounds to sue for breach without this new law.
I don't know how many contracts you have reviewed but I have seen MANY!!!! Never ONCE have I seen a contract with a clause that allows one party to unilaterally change the contract terms without notice. That would basically be a non-contract. One party is not bound. Don't be stupid.

A breach of contract cause is not sufficient. This new law specifically gives users a DTPA cause of action.
 
That does not include a "right" to unilaterally breach contracts at will and be deceptive about it. Not a free speech issue.
There is no breach of contract. If there were, these people already would be able to win lawsuits with that claim.

It’s been a while since I looked at these cases but I’m pretty sure this argument has been tried before and failed.

If that really were the argument, this law isn’t necessary. It’s not and you probably know that. This is just the latest attempt at throwing the spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. It’s all pretextual. It’s all about revenge.
Wrong, asshole. Facebook argues that it's protected from lawsuits by rule 230.

Throwing the spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks is what lawyers do, moron.
 
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? :cuckoo:
Of course they are


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.

:dance:
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.
lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers
Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.
Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.
No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.
If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.
And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.
So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?
Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.
 
Steven Crowder has a great legal argument. They are destroying his business.
That's not a good legal argument at all, haha. They have no right to publish on Facebook.
Sure they do. Facebook cannot changes the terms of the deal he made when he started his business. Furthermore, they don't enroce their rules evenly. Crowder has all kinds of reasons to win a lawsuit.
 
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? :cuckoo:
Of course they are


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.

:dance:
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.
lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers
Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.
Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.
No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.
If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.
And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.
So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?
Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.
The case was dismissed because of rule 230
 
Steven Crowder has a great legal argument. They are destroying his business.
That's not a good legal argument at all, haha. They have no right to publish on Facebook.
Sure they do. Facebook cannot changes the terms of the deal he made when he started his business. Furthermore, they don't enroce their rules evenly. Crowder has all kinds of reasons to win a lawsuit.
There's no law which compels them to enforce their rules evenly. Same as this site.
 
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? :cuckoo:
Of course they are


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.

:dance:
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.
lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers
Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.
Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.
No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.
If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.
And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.
So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?
Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.
The case was dismissed because of rule 230
Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.
 
Do you have a right to make calls on a privately owned cellular service?
Does my contract say I do, if I make my payments? then yes. And still they can terminate my contract at any time, per the riders.. How much did you pay for Facebook last month?

Do you think you have a right to post on USMB? To post whatever you like? Let's test that.
Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone, you fucking moron.

And, no, they cannot terminate your contract anytime for any reason.
 
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? :cuckoo:
Of course they are


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.

:dance:
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.
lord not....it’s why they cii op is be common carriers
Of course you did. You pointed out Facebook isn't a telecommunication service or a public utility.

So now I see you whined about me cutting out irrelevancies as a diversion from you pointing out a requirement of a common carrier is paying them for their service whereas Facebook is free to members.
Currently they aren't regulated as such, but should be in my opinion, and appears to be the way things are headed...even the SCOTUS openly discussed it.

That's the point I was making.
No one cares what you want. The bottom line is Facebook is not a common carrier which even you unwittingly admitted when you posted a definition of a common carrier that includes thrre is a fee for such services.

That's why I asked you how much it costs to post on Facebook.

That's why you ignored that question.

Three times.

Because you can't bring yourself to admit Facebook isn't a common common carrier even though you yourself demonstrated they are not.
If it's not a common carrier, then it isn't protected by rule 230, and it can be sued. You can't seem to make up your mind whether it is a common carrier, or not.
And yet, it's not a common carrier by the definition of a common carrier.
So then people can sue it. What are you arguing about?
Of course they can sue. You yourself posted an article where they were sued.
The case was dismissed because of rule 230
Of course it was since they're covered by rule 230.
Rule 230 covers common carriers, moron. How many times are we going for a ride on this wheel of circular logic?
 
It's not a free speech issue.
It 100% is a free speech issue. Everything we are talking about relates to speech.
Everything we are talking about relates to a contractual relationship between social media and users.

But no contract can violate the law. No contract is valid that permits you to do something otherwise illegal or makes illegal something that is allowed by law.
 
Cell companies are common carriers. They cannot refuse service to anyone
They are not publicly publishing and broadcasting your phone calls, so it is an idiotic attempt at an analogy anyway. Your phone call with your weekend tranny won't affect their other customers or their own image.
 
Steven Crowder has a great legal argument. They are destroying his business.
That's not a good legal argument at all, haha. They have no right to publish on Facebook.
Sure they do. Facebook cannot changes the terms of the deal he made when he started his business. Furthermore, they don't enroce their rules evenly. Crowder has all kinds of reasons to win a lawsuit.
There's no law which compels them to enforce their rules evenly. Same as this site.
It's evidence of deceptive trade, which, unlike a breach of contract claim, allows for treble exemplary damages.
 
It's not a free speech issue.
It 100% is a free speech issue. Everything we are talking about relates to speech.
Everything we are talking about relates to a contractual relationship between social media and users.

But no contract can violate the law. No contract is valid that permits you to do something otherwise illegal or makes illegal something that is allowed by law.
That is a correct statement of law. But, what facts are you referring to?
 

Forum List

Back
Top