Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Sign Bill Banning Social Media ‘Deplatforming’

[dblack]

Bake the cake, comrade!

Seig Heil

Then you would allow me at your "Nazis Only Lunch Counter," Herr Black?

You really have no consistent principles at all. If the political situation were different, if the tables were turned and liberals were trying to use the same justifications for state intervention that you are, you'd be howling. Rank, wretched hypocrisy.

 

[progressive hunter]

None of those operate as "public forums."

Twitter is not a public forum in any legal respect. It is a private space. There is no public ownership of the platform.

youre lying again with your word games,,

you know exactly whats meant by a public forum,,,

 

[colfax_m]

You really have no consistent principles at all. If the political situation were different, if the tables were turned and liberals were trying to use the same justifications for state intervention that you are, you'd be howling. Rank, wretched hypocrisy.

The principle is that they will consistently use government to give themselves what they want.

 

[Uncensored2008]

colfascist lies a lot,,

Honestly I think he's just too dumb to comprehend the script the hate sites give him to recite.

 

[Uncensored2008]

None of those operate as "public forums."

Twitter is not a public forum in any legal respect. It is a private space. There is no public ownership of the platform.

Too dumb to know what terms mean.. you're PERFECT for the Reich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

youre lying again with your word games,,

you know exactly whats meant by a public forum,,,

I don't think he does, I think he really is that stupid.

 

[Crepitus]

I'm not going to listen to some Nazi drone on the hate America radio.

I thought you were a rush limbaugh fan?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You really have no consistent principles at all. If the political situation were different, if the tables were turned and liberals were trying to use the same justifications for state intervention that you are, you'd be howling. Rank, wretched hypocrisy.

I have never wavered from the ideals of Roth, Rand, Browne, et al.

You have embraced full fascism.

 

[progressive hunter]

youre lying again with your word games,,

you know exactly whats meant by a public forum,,,

I don't think he does, I think he really is that stupid.

nahhh hes lying and he knows it,,

 

[Crepitus]

Are you really trying to pretend you've forgotten about "citizens united"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA


Dumb fucking Nazi _ I knew I could count on your ignorant ass.

No stupid fuck, Citizen United didn't make "corporations people."

CU defended the right of citizens to unit in a PAC and oppose a political candidate as protected by the 1st Amendment. If you want to argue 501 3C tax exemption for political action that is a different debate. Your Reich attempted to silence political speech from the opposition.

Seriously Chang, I don't know why they give you your bowl of rice each day....

You really are an ignorant idiot, aren't you.

 

[Crepitus]

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Looks like Fla passed an unconstitutional law that abridges the freedom of the Press. Newspapers, the Press, were companies.

considering youre blind explains your ignorance,,

now get someone to read the law to you and you will hear that it protects journalist from being banned,,

"You're"

If you're gonna call someone else dumb you should really check your spelling and punctuation, otherwise it kinda backfires and you are the one who looks dumb.

 

[dblack]

You really have no consistent principles at all. If the political situation were different, if the tables were turned and liberals were trying to use the same justifications for state intervention that you are, you'd be howling. Rank, wretched hypocrisy.

I have never wavered from the ideals of Roth, Rand, Browne, et al.

You have embraced full fascism.

Bake the cake!

 

[danielpalos]

Be the cake and proclaim, eat me chics!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The principle is that they will consistently use government to give themselves what they want.

Right, because you're a free market fan.

Herr Himmler, if you want the tech Fascist to be "free," why do you insist on Section 230 to protect them from liability for the slander and demagoguery they publish?

See, that's where dblack gets tangled in his Nazi underwear, he want's the board rigged for his Reich. He says he opposes public accommodation, while insisting special laws make make them immune for torts due to providing public accommodation.

The Twatter Nazis are free to declare themselves publishers, drop the farce of "public forum" and face the lawsuits they so richly deserve for the shit they publish.

But Herr Black wants it both ways, because like you, he serves the Reich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you really trying to pretend you've forgotten about "citizens united"?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA


Dumb fucking Nazi _ I knew I could count on your ignorant ass.

No stupid fuck, Citizen United didn't make "corporations people."

CU defended the right of citizens to unit in a PAC and oppose a political candidate as protected by the 1st Amendment. If you want to argue 501 3C tax exemption for political action that is a different debate. Your Reich attempted to silence political speech from the opposition.

Seriously Chang, I don't know why they give you your bowl of rice each day....

You really are an ignorant idiot, aren't you.

See Chang, you're not just ignorant and uninformed, you're flat out stupid.

 

[colfax_m]

Too dumb to know what terms mean.. you're PERFECT for the Reich

I’m well aware of what you think it means, colloquially. But this is a discussion about law, so the definition that matters is the legal one.

Social media don’t fit the legal definition of a public forum.

These terms matter.

 

[colfax_m]

Herr Himmler, if you want the tech Fascist to be "free," why do you insist on Section 230 to protect them from liability for the slander and demagoguery they publish?

A long time ago, Congress realized that the internet was different than other media spaces and that websites needed the ability to moderate user submitted content without having to take on all responsibility of a traditional publisher.

It’s basically the only way that social media could exist in the first place. Without section 230, I doubt Twitter or Facebook would exist at all.

 

[dblack]

Herr Himmler, if you want the tech Fascist to be "free," why do you insist on Section 230 to protect them from liability for the slander and demagoguery they publish?

A long time ago, Congress realized that the internet was different than other media spaces and that websites needed the ability to moderate user submitted content without having to take on all responsibility of a traditional publisher.

It’s basically the only way that social media could exist in the first place. Without section 230, I doubt Twitter or Facebook would exist at all.

Yes, and removing 230 wouldn't change a goddamned thing. Courts would establish the same policy via precedent. They're not going to shut down the internet because Trumpsters got their panties in a wad.

 

[colfax_m]

Yes, and removing 230 wouldn't change a goddamned thing. Courts would establish the same the same policy with precedent. They're not going to shut down the internet because Trumpsters got their panties in a wad.

Precedent was already established in the 90s, wrongly decided in my opinion. I hope you’d be correct but I don’t know what would happen. I know for sure nothing would happen quickly. It’d take years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, and removing 230 wouldn't change a goddamned thing. Courts would establish the same policy via precedent. They're not going to shut down the internet because Trumpsters got their panties in a wad.

Yet you fight tooth and nail to keep it in place to use big government to protect the tech fascists.