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

[dblack]

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

Then you should want government as far away from private sector decisions possible.

But that's not what supposed conservatives are talking about doing. Especially with this bill.

then take away their 230 protections and all will be fine,,

It really would. And I wish they'd just go ahead and do that so you guys would quit using it to justify the Ministry of Truth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This will likely get struck down by the courts. Also, it’s a violation of association rights, business rights, and property rights, but those don’t matter to those that only pay lip service to those principles anyway.

human rights come before those,,

You think you have a human right to a social media account? How hilariously entitled.

I like how leftists consider any right they don't want to recognize as "hilarious entitlement". Somehow, though, the things they want to claim as rights that no one else ever has, THOSE aren't hilarious or entitled at all.

 

[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,,

The first amendment applies to government. Government cannot do anything to limit free speech. It does not apply to comanies. You have no free speech rights in regards to companies.

I realize DeSantis is just a Trump wannabe grabbing headlines while misleading people, but your post sort of buoyed my question of whether Fla can do this. Facebook has the same constitutional rights you or I have ... according to the GOP supreme court. So how can Fla control what facebook allows to be "published" on it's "space"?

They can't. It's an unconstitutional law. It won't stand.

 

[Crepitus]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

 

[dblack]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

 

[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,,

The first amendment applies to government. Government cannot do anything to limit free speech. It does not apply to comanies. You have no free speech rights in regards to companies.

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

Your post tells me you've misinterpreted the whole thread. All 500+ posts of it.

How is that even possible?

 

[Crepitus]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

Baking the cake wouldn't cause an insurrection.

 

[dblack]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

Baking the cake wouldn't cause an insurrection.

??? Neither would forcing social media companies to host state propaganda. Not sure what you're point is supposed to be.

 

[Crepitus]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

Baking the cake wouldn't cause an insurrection.

??? Neither would forcing social media companies to host state propaganda. Not sure what you're point is supposed to be.

Really? Because it already did.

 

[dblack]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

Baking the cake wouldn't cause an insurrection.

??? Neither would forcing social media companies to host state propaganda. Not sure what you're point is supposed to be.

Really? Because it already did.

LOL - no, it didn't. The storming of the capital wasn't an "insurrection". It was a riot. And Trump incited the riot, not Facebook.

 

[Crepitus]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

Baking the cake wouldn't cause an insurrection.

??? Neither would forcing social media companies to host state propaganda. Not sure what you're point is supposed to be.

Really? Because it already did.

LOL - no, it didn't. The storming of the capital wasn't an "insurrection". It was a riot. And Trump incited the riot, not Facebook.

tRump incited the insurrection via Facebook and Twitter among other things.

 

[dblack]

While I enjoy the predictable shrieks of outrage from the usual suspects when their sacred ox is gored, the government cannot legally compel nor prevent speech and this will fail. The same will happen to New York's attempt to both compel a photographer to post speech on her web site and prevent her from posting speech on her web site. Government simply must not be allowed to monkey with speech. This is an overreach.

Seems to me it's like a baker being unable to refuse service for events he doesn't agree with. Here we have social media companies being unable to refuse service to viewpoints they don't agree with. If bakers are "public accommodations which can't discriminate", social media DEFINITELY is.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the old saying goes.

The baker didn't bake the cake.

Did you forget that?

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

Baking the cake wouldn't cause an insurrection.

??? Neither would forcing social media companies to host state propaganda. Not sure what you're point is supposed to be.

Really? Because it already did.

LOL - no, it didn't. The storming of the capital wasn't an "insurrection". It was a riot. And Trump incited the riot, not Facebook.

tRump incited the insurrection via Facebook and Twitter among other things.

Hmm.. ok, still not sure what your point is, and I wouldn't call it an insurrection.

Anyway, why did you switch sides? Will you switch back when the targets change?

 

[colfax_m]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

 

[dblack]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."

 

[colfax_m]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."

Sometimes differences really are different.

It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.

No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.

 

[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.

Bake the cake!

Seig Heil, Herr Black

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

This discussion is about the lies posted by the OP and your abject stupidity in failing to find out what the Florida proposal actually is.

You Nazis have no defense against the facts, so you lie. It's your way.

If social media doesn't fit the definition of a public forum, then it isn't protected by 230 and can be sued for the bullshit slander and libel they publish non-stop.

 

[colfax_m]

If social media doesn't fit the definition of a public forum, then it isn't protected by 230 and can be sued for the bullshit slander and libel they publish non-stop.

Utter nonsense. Section 230 doesn’t say anything about the website being a “public forum”. The term isn’t used let alone defined. Section 230 applies to any website where users submit content.

Your argument doesn’t have a factual basis.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Wow, the Congress realize that the internet was different and put in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934....

Honestly, as stupid as you are, I'm amazed you have enough brain power for autonomous functions like drawing breath.