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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Wrong.

The First Amendment right to freedom of association indeed safeguards FB’s liberty to determine who will or will not be a member of their organization.

There is neither a ‘right’ nor ‘freedom’ of private citizens to either participate or conduct themselves contrary to the rules of a private organization such as FB.

Individuals whom FB lawfully excludes from participating are not subject to ‘censorship.’

 

[WEATHER53]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies. If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

Which is entirely their legal right. As it should be.

So you support selective censoring of speech. At least your position is clear

 

[dblack]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies. If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

Which is entirely their legal right. As it should be.

So you support selective censoring of speech. At least your position is clear

Yes, I do. They ban trolls on this site, and it makes for a better experience. I'm glad that's clear to you.

You position is clear as well. You want the state dictating these matters. No thanks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies.

That right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and private companies – not between or among private companies and their clients, customers, or patrons.

 

[WEATHER53]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Wrong.

The First Amendment right to freedom of association indeed safeguards FB’s liberty to determine who will or will not be a member of their organization.

There is neither a ‘right’ nor ‘freedom’ of private citizens to either participate or conduct themselves contrary to the rules of a private organization such as FB.

Individuals whom FB lawfully excludes from participating are not subject to ‘censorship.’

That’s a huge pretzel twist to make look legit Facebook asking for commentary but then deleting, censoring and banning those whose thoughts beliefs and expression don’t match Facebooks agenda. All expression sought but selective bias of what will be distributed. Morally reprehensible,

 

[rightwinger]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies. If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

Which is entirely their legal right. As it should be.

So you support selective censoring of speech. At least your position is clear

If that censoring is from a private entity.....of course

 

[rightwinger]

banning those whose thoughts beliefs and expression don’t match Facebooks agenda.

Especially if that agenda is to ban misinformation and hate speech

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

That is EXACTLY what social media has been doing. Say the wrong thing about masking or COVID vax and you get shit on...FOR GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA!!!

The reality is that you are no different than anyone else. You love your government shit just like everyone else. You are NOT a libertarian, by any stretch. You don't give a FUCK about liberty when it comes to anyone you label a "Trumpster." Principles...you ain't got none.

 

[WEATHER53]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies. If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

Which is entirely their legal right. As it should be.

So you support selective censoring of speech. At least your position is clear

Yes, I do. They ban trolls on this site, and it makes for a better experience. I'm glad that's clear to you.

You position is clear as well. You want the state dictating these matters. No thanks.

I want the public to have the opportunity to decide for themselves. Facebook is precluding that with their censorship. It’s only ideas that might challenge your beliefs that Lib loons want exterminated. That’s what I object to. Your tangent about “I want state control” has been defeated and is something you made up to divert and deflect away from your failed justification of Facebooks actions

 

[dblack]

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.

That is EXACTLY what social media has been doing. Say the wrong thing about masking or COVID vax and you get shit on...FOR GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA!!!

The reality is that you are no different than anyone else. You love your government shit just like everyone else. You are NOT a libertarian, by any stretch. You don't give a FUCK about liberty when it comes to anyone you label a "Trumpster." Principles...you ain't got none.

I think you smell the bullshit coming off your own post.

You've become infested with the liberal statist premise that every single social disagreement should be decided by government. Sad.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Social media is essentially a public utility of information and opinion exchange. Facebook is saying “if we don’t agree with your opinions or experiences then we won’t allow it to appear here”

There's no characteristics of social media which would qualify it as a public utility in any way shape or form.

Are we really so lame as a society that we see Facebook access on the same par as electricity? FFS. Some people need to get a life.

Some people need to get an understanding of balanced freedom of expression

Absofuckinglutely. They need to understand that freedom of expression doesn't mean you get to force your views on others, it doesn't mean you have a "right" to troll social media.

See your subjectivism of force and troll is the problem. The public is fully capable of accepting or rejecting any presented information. Agenda driven Facebook should not be allowed to do that “for” the public under the guise of “force...misinformation...your viewpoint” Freedom of expression means that there is no such thing as”forcing” your views. Present your statements and the public rightfully gets to accept or reject and not Nanny Agenda Facebook

Yep. The same old song and dance from statists who want government to control over damned thing. I'll pass.

I want statist government to quit "lawfully" shitting on our rights by hiding behind the private sector.

 

[rightwinger]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies. If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

Which is entirely their legal right. As it should be.

So you support selective censoring of speech. At least your position is clear

Yes, I do. They ban trolls on this site, and it makes for a better experience. I'm glad that's clear to you.

You position is clear as well. You want the state dictating these matters. No thanks.

I want the public to have the opportunity to decide for themselves. Facebook is precluding that. You’d tangent about “I want state control” has been defeated and us something you made up to divert and deflect away from your failed justification of Facebooks actions

Trump is free to create his own website and post any misinformation and hate that he wishes.

Why does he need Facebook?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

And?

Whatever ‘bad conduct’ you might perceive FB to be engaging in has nothing to do with ‘free speech’ or ‘censorship.’

The solution to this ‘bad conduct’ is to refuse to patronize FB, not violate FB’s First Amendment rights with reckless, irresponsible, bad-faith legislation such as DeSantis and others on the authoritarian right seek to do.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

That is EXACTLY what social media has been doing. Say the wrong thing about masking or COVID vax and you get shit on...FOR GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA!!!

The reality is that you are no different than anyone else. You love your government shit just like everyone else. You are NOT a libertarian, by any stretch. You don't give a FUCK about liberty when it comes to anyone you label a "Trumpster." Principles...you ain't got none.

I think you smell the bullshit on your own post.

You've become infested with the liberal statist premise that every single social disagreement should be decided by government. Sad.

WRONG. I want government to quit hiding behind the unrestrained private sector.

 

[WEATHER53]

banning those whose thoughts beliefs and expression don’t match Facebooks agenda.

Especially if that agenda is to ban misinformation and hate speech

What is or isn’t misinformation is very subjective in politics and should rightly be In the eye of the beholding consumer to decide and not at the censorship whim of Facebook

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies.

That right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and private companies – not between or among private companies and their clients, customers, or patrons.

And THIS is what I am complaining about. This is GOVERNMENT hiding behind the private sector so it can SHIT on our rights.

It IS GOVERNMENT ACTION!!!

 

[dblack]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies. If I say Trump is great and Facebook sucks for removing him then Facebook shows itself to be a very frightened, censoring agenda driven company

Which is entirely their legal right. As it should be.

So you support selective censoring of speech. At least your position is clear

Yes, I do. They ban trolls on this site, and it makes for a better experience. I'm glad that's clear to you.

You position is clear as well. You want the state dictating these matters. No thanks.

I want the public to have the opportunity to decide for themselves. Facebook is precluding that.

No, they're just plain not. If you get your druthers, and the state makes the call - well, then there'll be genuine force involved. Then freedom will be at risk. Not that you give a shit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump is free to create his own website and post any misinformation and hate that he wishes.

Trump would likewise be at liberty to exclude whomever he wishes with impunity – he could delete the accounts of liberals because they posted facts and the truth, for example.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Whatever ‘bad conduct’ you might perceive FB to be engaging in has nothing to do with ‘free speech’ or ‘censorship.’

It is when they have a government-protected monopoly and government is using facebook as a tool to FUCK US OVER without constitutional restraint.

If you can't see that game, I have nothing else to say to you.

 

[dblack]

Of course we have free speech rights regarding companies.

That right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and private companies – not between or among private companies and their clients, customers, or patrons.

And THIS is what I am complaining about. This is GOVERNMENT hiding behind the private sector so it can SHIT on our rights.

It IS GOVERNMENT ACTION!!!

No, it's not. You don't want to accept it, but many big tech companies (not all) are just fed up with Trumpsters. Lots of us are. Too bad.