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

[Uncensored2008]

I already answered that. You responded with nonsense. Translate the nonsense please.

No, you failed.

First you spewed the Reich lying point that this somehow violated the 1st - though none of the Nazis could manage to come up with how.

But of course the bill is actually about in-kind contributions. By silencing Republicans, the tech fascists are providing monetary value to the campaigns of Nazi candidates which must be reported as contributions.

It's actually brilliant and the Reich has no way of defeating it in the courts.

{

Under the new measure from the Florida Legislature, technology companies that deplatform a candidate during an election will face a daily fine of $100,000 until the candidate’s access to the platform is restored.

If a technology company promotes a candidate for office against another, the value of that free promotion must be recorded as a political campaign contribution enforced by the Florida Elections Commission.

}

Florida GOP Is Poised To Take On Big Tech And The Censorship Brigades Are Going To Hate It – RedState

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The First Amendment is for private business and companies in that government cannot take punitive measures against a private entity because of whom it decides to not allow to be a member (see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000)).

This Florida measure does exactly that: it subjects private social media to fines if a social media entity elects to exclude someone from participating, in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Mustang]

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

The reason for this is glaringly simple. What group is always saying wild, crazy, incendiary & conspiratorial stuff and getting banned from social media platforms? It's conservatives.

I guess DeSantis wants there to not only be a right to be nutty, but a right to be nutty in a public forum. What's next? Are Floridians going to have to accept nutty people yelling on street corners from now on? Thank God I don't live in Florida. In my state, we call the cops, and they haul the nutcases off to the nut house which is where they belong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps.

But Constitutionally protected, nonetheless.

Twitter didn’t want to facilitate Trump’s reckless, irresponsible, and incendiary lies; in accordance with the First Amendment right to freedom of association, it prohibited Trump from participating – and appropriately so.

That Trump may have been a sitting president is irrelevant.

Really Saul?

Let's see where the Constitution protects the "right" of censorship of opposing political ideas?

Remember;

Public accommodations in the United States - Wikipedia

AND of course the act deals with in-kind contributions by the tech fascists.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

The First Amendment is for private business and companies in that government cannot take punitive measures against a private entity because of whom it decides to not allow to be a member (see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000)).

This Florida measure does exactly that: it subjects private social media to fines if a social media entity elects to exclude someone from participating, in violation of the First Amendment.

if they have government protections they are subject to other restrictions,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

The First Amendment is for private business and companies in that government cannot take punitive measures against a private entity because of whom it decides to not allow to be a member (see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000)).

This Florida measure does exactly that: it subjects private social media to fines if a social media entity elects to exclude someone from participating, in violation of the First Amendment.

No, it doesn't.

Your ignorance once again shines dimly.

 

[Uncensored2008]

if they have government protections they are subject to other restrictions,,

Remember, CCP troll Dana7360 lied in the OP, as she lies in every post. The measure goes after the fascists for electioneering. It holds that when the tech fascists promote the candidacy of a Reich candidate by censoring their opponent it has monetary value to the Reich and is an in-kind contribution.

Impossible to deny. Twitter and Facebook actively used their platform to promote Quid Pro Biden by censoring Donald Trump and his supporters. The law doesn't prohibit the tech Nazis, it instead fines them under existing FEC law for unreported contributions.

 

[danielpalos]

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

Right wingers are pretty good at practicing the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God). Why should anyone believe them in abortion threads.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Right wingers are pretty good at practicing the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God). Why should anyone believe them in abortion threads.

WTF

Mix a little LSD into your crack this morning?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

how is protecting peoples speech restrictive of anyone??

The First Amendment protects the people’s right to free speech from government excess and overreach; the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities, such as social media.

Private social media cannot ‘violate’ anyone’s free speech – only government has the potential of doing so.

Laws and measures enacted by government forcing social media to allow participation don’t ‘protect’ anyone’s ‘free speech’ because social media are incapable of ‘violating’ free speech to begin with; such measures violate social medias’ First Amendment right to freedom of association.

 

[progressive hunter]

how is protecting peoples speech restrictive of anyone??

The First Amendment protects the people’s right to free speech from government excess and overreach; the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities, such as social media.

Private social media cannot ‘violate’ anyone’s free speech – only government has the potential of doing so.

Laws and measures enacted by government forcing social media to allow participation don’t ‘protect’ anyone’s ‘free speech’ because social media are incapable of ‘violating’ free speech to begin with; such measures violate social medias’ First Amendment right to freedom of association.

youre spinning so bad you better be sitting down,,

 

[366h34d]

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

What is your problem? Those big techs, most of them are gov't subcontractors or under gov't subsidies. Do you want them to hold the same standard as US gov't?

 

[366h34d]

how is protecting peoples speech restrictive of anyone??

The First Amendment protects the people’s right to free speech from government excess and overreach; the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities, such as social media.

Private social media cannot ‘violate’ anyone’s free speech – only government has the potential of doing so.

Laws and measures enacted by government forcing social media to allow participation don’t ‘protect’ anyone’s ‘free speech’ because social media are incapable of ‘violating’ free speech to begin with; such measures violate social medias’ First Amendment right to freedom of association.

Free speech != you can say whatever you want. Even sleepy knows that

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This seems a very authoritarian gesture. The right always reverts to this sort of thing. Dissent must be crushed.

Exactly.

It’s typical of the authoritarian right: compel conformity and punish dissent.

This is in essence a conservative hissy-fit because social media refuse to facilitate rightwing hate, misinformation, and lies.

And Republican lawmakers – in a reckless, irresponsible, and un-Constitutional abuse of government power – are using the authority of the state to punish social media.

More government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty – it’s the conservative way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"There's already a solution to deplatforming candidates on social media: Stop trafficking in conspiracy theories. That's the solution. Stop pushing misinformation if you're a candidate or an incumbent elected official. Stop retweeting QAnon. Stop lying on social media," Smith said.

This isn’t a solution for conservatives, of course, because all they have are conspiracy theories, misinformation, and lies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The First Amendment protects the people’s right to free speech from government excess and overreach; the right to free speech concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities, such as social media.

Private social media cannot ‘violate’ anyone’s free speech – only government has the potential of doing so.

Laws and measures enacted by government forcing social media to allow participation don’t ‘protect’ anyone’s ‘free speech’ because social media are incapable of ‘violating’ free speech to begin with; such measures violate social medias’ First Amendment right to freedom of association.

You should talk to a lawyer someday...

The tech fascists operate under the guise of public access. If they want to be publishers, they may. However under the protections of public access, they are compelled to provide an equal platform governed by stated guidelines.

The tech fascists don't, as we know - they promote the Reich and silence any and all opposition to your Reich. In doing so they violate the law and must lose all protections granted under section 230.

Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech platforms have immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to to host) user-generated content. Unlike publishers, which are liable if their writers defame someone, a tech platform is not held liable for content created by its users.

Look, you know nothing of law or the application of law, but if the tech fascists want to promote the Reich, then they are publishers like WaPo and the NY Times.

 

[d0gbreath]

Have fun fining those big tech companies that aren't even located in your state.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This isn’t a solution for conservatives, of course, because all they have are conspiracy theories, misinformation, and lies.

Says the Nazi after 5 years of the "rushing coalushun" conspiracy theory pimped by your Reich and their corrupt propaganda corps....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have fun fining those big tech companies that aren't even located in your state.

Oh, is THAT how you think it works?

Stupidity is the fuel upon which Nazis operate....

 

[d0gbreath]

Oh, is THAT how you think it works?

Stupidity is the fuel upon which Nazis operate....

I guess we'll see whenever they start levying those daily fines.