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

[Faun]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

that's what I said "

sharing hacked materials​

They of course never had such a policy when it was stories about the President...it just happened to be the policy when it was negative stories about Xiden's and his son's corrupt business deals with foreign nations

Well that's not true. They've had a policy for years forbidding members from revealing other members' names, addresses, personal phone numbers, email address, etc....

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

And that case bears no relation to the issue at hand, just btw.

 

[struth]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

that's what I said "

sharing hacked materials​

They of course never had such a policy when it was stories about the President...it just happened to be the policy when it was negative stories about Xiden's and his son's corrupt business deals with foreign nations

Well that's not true. They've had a policy for years forbidding members from revealing other members' names, addresses, personal phone numbers, email address, etc....

no member did that

all that was linked was a newspaper article.

they claimed that they blocked it because it contained linked material...according to your link...and they never blocked articles like that before

 

[Faun]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

that's what I said "

sharing hacked materials​

They of course never had such a policy when it was stories about the President...it just happened to be the policy when it was negative stories about Xiden's and his son's corrupt business deals with foreign nations

Well that's not true. They've had a policy for years forbidding members from revealing other members' names, addresses, personal phone numbers, email address, etc....

no member did that

all that was linked was a newspaper article.

they claimed that they blocked it because it contained linked material...according to your link...and they never blocked articles like that before

According to what link? I gave no link.

 

[John T. Ford]

"Stop the steal" was a figment of your imagination?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 !!!

Communications Decency Act, Section 230

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

Seriously, what fucking rock have you been hiding under for the last two years that you aren't aware of the law Congress enacted to protect Facebook, Twitter, etc., about which everyone and his fucking brother has been talking this whole time?

Fool!!!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Ledbetter Act, Civil Rights Act, american disabilities act

Congratulations, you've shown that "all the time" is once every ten years.

Congratulations, you managed to move that goalpost. "Name three . . . oh, see, you only named three!"

I think I can actually see your brains leaking out of your ear and lowering your IQ with every post.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

The examples given say that congress instead of "all the time" creates new reasons once every generation.

You said to give three examples. You did NOT say to give three examples within a specific time period, but now suddenly, you want to argue that those three are the ONLY three examples in existence, and that NOW your argument is about the time frame.

Why don't you give us just ONE example of you posting something honest and intelligent? In ANY time period.

 

[bripat9643]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

Twitter lied, and Business Insider is a leftwing propaganda organ.

Oh, fucking moron? About what did they lie?

Twitter lied about the reason it banned the NY Post, or course. They did it because they are Biden supporters.

 

[struth]

There are a lot of politicans...and a lot of politicans have been targeted by Facebook et al.

Can you name three?

Trump was one as well...and it was really highlighted in the 2020 election. One example was how they blocked a negative story about the Xiden family corrupt business practices overseas.

The article violated their guidelines on doxxing since the article published the personal email address. It was shoddy journalism.

Trump, Devin Nunez, Matt Gaetz.

That isn't the reason they blocked the story, you lying douchebag.

Devin Nunes and Matt Gaetz have active Twitter and Facebook profiles.

Are you denying that the NY Post article published personal information?

i have no idea if it did...the reason they gave was that it violated their new standard about publishing things from leaked sources

which is ironic because they posted things about trump from leaked sources all the time

Twitter says it banned New York Post articles about Hunter Biden for violating its policies against doxxing and sharing hacked materials

"We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials," the company said.

www.businessinsider.com

Twitter lied, and Business Insider is a leftwing propaganda organ.

Oh, fucking moron? About what did they lie?

Twitter lied about the reason it banned the NY Post, or course. They did it because they are Biden supporters.

which there can a case made that was an illegal campaign contribution

 

[Cecilie1200]

or just threw out three rather obvious ones off the top of my head

sorry you were and are so uninformed

For something that happens all the time, I would figure you would know of some of them.
If I said Trump sues people all the time I could name at least 10 lawsuits in the last 4 years.

And he DID know some of them, because he just mentioned three like you asked.

No one said it was a comprehensive list of ALL of them. That's just a new parameter YOU decided to impose so that you could deflect from having to admit you were wrong.

Again, goalpost-moving to disguise the fact that you're getting your ass beaten.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's over involved when a state tries to dictate how a company over 2,000 miles away conducts their business.

I disagree 100%. Since Twitter, Facebook, etc. are in computers of Floridians, day in and day out, Desantis has every bit a purpose to get a handle on this. With the internet, there is no such thing as 2,000 (or any) miles away.

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.

Which has fuck and all to do with anything.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

or just threw out three rather obvious ones off the top of my head

sorry you were and are so uninformed

For something that happens all the time, I would figure you would know of some of them.
If I said Trump sues people all the time I could name at least 10 lawsuits in the last 4 years.

And he DID know some of them, because he just mentioned three like you asked.

No one said it was a comprehensive list of ALL of them. That's just a new parameter YOU decided to impose so that you could deflect from having to admit you were wrong.

Again, goalpost-moving to disguise the fact that you're getting your ass beaten.

The longer this goes....

 

[WEATHER53]

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?

The "contractual relationship between social media and users" that you spoke of.

What illegal actions?

Not illegal actions, LEGAL ones. They can't call it a contract and say that if you talk bad about Biden we shadowban you. There is no law stating that you can't talk bad about Biden, so any contract that states they can ban you based on that is null and void.

If you want to do that, 230 no longer applies and you can be sued. You can't call yourself a neutral platform when YOU'RE NOT.

People can legally enter into contracts where they agree to give up certain rights. The problem is that Facebook didn't include such terms. They unilaterally changed the contract terms.

Most rights that are enscripted by law Cannot be “given up” by a party even if the feel it’s in their interest to do so. That’s why it became a law, so people did not bring unforeseen harm to themself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

FALSE! Florida law engages with out of state people every day. My own neighbor sued a company in Kentucky, and won the case here in Florida civil court. Another person I know here, sued a California company and won. Not only that, but the defendants had to come to Florida to contest the charges.

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.

You are actually incorrect. States can and do pass laws requiring businesses based in other states to do certain things a certain way when doing business in their state. And those businesses can and do get sued in that state for not complying, regardless of where they're based.

Let me give you a for-instance. One of my biggest clients is a law firm in Nevada which represents Allstate Insurance. Allstate Insurance is based in Northbrook, Illinois. However, Allstate sells insurance coverage to drivers in Nevada, largely online these days. And if you know anything about auto insurance, you know that every state in the Union has a whole raft of regulatory laws regarding it, and they're all different. Allstate is required to comply with the laws of each state they sell insurance in. How they manage that is Allstate's problem, not the state of Nevada's. And Allstate gets sued in the courts of the state of Nevada often enough to make their lawyers one of my biggest clients.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Some people only know each other on facebook. Catch a ban for some undisclosed reason and that communication llink is GONE. Yeah, it is a monopoly for many purposes.

That reminds me of people who only know their friends phone numbers because they have them on their phone.
If you confiscate their phone (or it breaks, or gets lost) and their link to their friends is GONE too.

You DO realize that even if you don't know your friends' phone numbers, you still know where they live and how to find them, moron.

People you're acquainted with online, however, are a different story.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that you don't have any friends, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It would never happen because Florida does not have jurisdiction over a company not in their state. A state can only make laws for their state, not for companies in another state.

Not entirely true. A company is answerable to the courts of any state where they have a physical prescience. Such as if Ford has a dealership in California, they can be sued in California.

Since facebook has no physical presence in Florida, you're right that they have no enforceable jurisdiction.

Completely untrue. There sure are a lot of armchair "experts" in here who suddenly think they're Clarence Darrow and want to make declarations about the law based on what sounded good when it passed through their heads five minutes ago.

A company does not have to have a physical "prescience [sic]" in a state to be subject to its laws. If they do business in that state, they're subject to its laws in regards to that business.

To use your example, a Ford dealership in California would be sued in California. However, if a customer of that California Ford dealership ordered a new car through them from Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor Company shipped them a car with a defective brake system that went out and caused an accident, it's Ford Motor Company who's going to get sued, and they're going to be sued in the courts of the state of California.

In fact, the Supreme Court recently ruled on exactly this question, with Ford Motor Company trying to use your argument and failing.

https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-03-25/justices-say-accident-victims-can-sue-ford-in-state-courts#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20ruled%20the%20Ford%20Motor,Ford%20vehicles.%20By%20Associated%20Press%20March%2025%2C%202021

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The definition according to whom?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Also completely incorrect and pulled completely out of your ass right this moment, because you thought it sounded good, so that must mean it's the law.

 

[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.

i did.

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

Really?
You went to a site on the Constitution or legal definitions to read up on DuhDumbass' bill?

Explains much