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

[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.

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

View attachment 486966

you complain about spelling and grammar and then use childish memes,,, you may want to check your outrage at the door,,

 

[BlindBoo]

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,,,

Rabid right wing talk radio broadcasts across public airwaves and have been allowed to express a single political perspective 24/7/365 for 3 decades now. They've dumbed down the dittoheads so much that they were willing to go along with Trumpybears final "Hail Mary" on Jan 6th. and swallow his "Big Lie".

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Look at the little Nazi democrats bitching and crying because they're open season banning conservatives because they don't want their opinions heard is being challenged. What a pack of filthy little shyster commies.

Democrats are the party of trash.

Exactly......they will not admit they only want freedom of speech for themselves.....that is the way of Totalitarians.

Inside of every leftwinger is a totalitarian yearning to get out.

 

[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.

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

View attachment 486966

you complain about spelling and grammar and then use childish memes,,, you may want to check your outrage at the door,,

I'm not complaining, I'm offering friendly advice.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

They knew it when they passed it.

It just appeases the base....see? We tried

 

[rightwinger]

Way too funny, they're violating the first amendment by preventing a company from violating peoples first amendment...only the looney left could come up with this.

You really don’t understand the First Amendment do you?

It starts......Congress shall pass no laws

 

[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,,,

Rabid right wing talk radio broadcasts across public airwaves and have been allowed to express a single political perspective 24/7/365 for 3 decades now. They've dumbed down the dittoheads so much that they were willing to go along with Trumpybears final "Hail Mary" on Jan 6th. and swallow his "Big Lie".

blah blah blah,,

 

[dblack]

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.

No, I don't. I just like mocking hypocrites. Twitter was mean to Trump, so you want government to "punish" Twitter. Pathetic.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

Exactly.

No one is going to put themselves at risk for lawsuit to lose everything they built if 230 didn't exist.

All those that did exist would heavily censor the site.

No smart business person is going to allow a total stranger on the internet expose them to lose everything they spent years to build.

This very message board will be at risk for lawsuit if 230 is repealed. That is IF the owners want to continue the board and risk legal problems. If they do, they will heavily censor this site. There won't be any more threads about nuking or destroying California or other states. There won't be anymore posts with veiled death threats. There won't be anymore posts with abusive attacks. The owners of the board will censor all that and more from the board to protect themselves from being sued. People who won't conform to the TOS rules will be banned much quicker too because the owners won't want to be sued.

The republicans are making the same mistake they have made for decades. Their demand for instant gratification without considering the consequences of their actions. They never actually take the time to properly solve problems. They want their gratification instantly which doesn't allow for rational, logical and intelligent thought or response.

 

[dblack]

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.

That was then, this is now. Again, the courts aren't going to destroy social media to placate sore losers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

But, you don't see an unholy alliance between government and big tech wherein big tech is government's tool to violate all sorts of rights and privacy?

Something MUST be done about that shit.

 

[colfax_m]

But, you don't see an unholy alliance between government and big tech wherein big tech is government's tool to violate all sorts of rights and privacy?

Something MUST be done about that shit.

I share privacy concerns with big tech. That’s a point we can all work on.

But speech is not something that I agree with you. If anyone wants to act like an asshole on the internet, you better be prepared to be kicked off mainstream platforms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

That was then, this is now. Again, the courts aren't going to destroy social media to placate sore losers.

I can't believe you don't see the inherent danger here.

So, as long as it's not government ACTUALLY doing the censoring, even though government is behind it, you're fine with it?

As long as government doesn't do the raid on your house, but government prosecutes you for your weed stash, it's fine?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But, you don't see an unholy alliance between government and big tech wherein big tech is government's tool to violate all sorts of rights and privacy?

Something MUST be done about that shit.

I share privacy concerns with big tech. That’s a point we can all work on.

But speech is not something that I agree with you. If anyone wants to act like an asshole on the internet, you better be prepared to be kicked off mainstream platforms.

What if they not acting like assholes? (like we have seen) What if the "platform" simply disagrees with the message? Please tell me you don't believe the monitoring has been even-handed.

 

[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.

But, you don't see an unholy alliance between government and big tech wherein big tech is government's tool to violate all sorts of rights and privacy?

Something MUST be done about that shit.

No, I don't. What I see is that Big Tech doesn't like Trumpsters. So they're supporting Democrats and doing what they can to thwart Republicans. That's their right. It's everyone's right to support those they agree with and oppose those they disagree with.

What you're asking for is a legal requirement for social media companies to host government propaganda. That's about as anti-First-Amendment as you can get.

 

[colfax_m]

What if they not acting like assholes? (like we have seen) What if the "platform" simply disagrees with the message? Please tell me you don't believe the monitoring has been even-handed.

It’s still up to the platform to decide what is and isn’t appropriate for their platform. They are after all footing the bill for the entire service.

 

[dblack]

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.

That was then, this is now. Again, the courts aren't going to destroy social media to placate sore losers.

I can't believe you don't see the inherent danger here.

So, as long as it's not government ACTUALLY doing the censoring, even though government is behind it, you're fine with it?

As long as government doesn't do the raid on your house, but government prosecutes you for your weed stash, it's fine?

The government isn't prosecuting anyone when a social media site bans trolls.

 

[mamooth]

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

If you'd quit acting like such a fascist shitstain in every conceivable way, decent people wouldn't always shun you. You are not being censored when that happens. You're just an asshole who is being shown the door.

Remember, we pimp-slapped you fascists in WW2, and we're proud to be doing so again. Whatever gave you the impression that you'd win this time, or that we'd stop punching Nazis just because it makes the Nazis cry? That's the whole point of punching Nazis.

Now, cry some more of those sweet fascist tears. So tasty. Yumyumyumyumyum.

 

[rightwinger]

What if they not acting like assholes? (like we have seen) What if the "platform" simply disagrees with the message? Please tell me you don't believe the monitoring has been even-handed.

It’s still up to the platform to decide what is and isn’t appropriate for their platform. They are after all footing the bill for the entire service.

Nothing prevents a platform from being radically right or left and acting accordingly.

They can determine fact or fantasy accordingly