Florida Senator introduces bill to fine facebook if they censor user's religious or political speech

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It isn't the first amendment position, it's a socialist control of private business position.

No, it's hardly some
thing I don't like. It's a very specific anti First Amendment thing that I don't like.

Typical lib position, if private business does something you don't like call in big bother.

I'm hardly a lib.
And you have a very unique view with regard to business...that it can do whatever it wishes merely because it's a private enterprise.
Can a private business sell products it knows are harmful to health? That are defective and dangerous? Can a private business intentionally misrepresent a product it sells?

Facebook and other social media should be held to the same standard that a pack of cigarettes, a Ford Pinto or lead based paint is held to. That doesn't make me a lib. That makes you a Luddite Neanderthal more at home in the 19th century than the 21st.

Your claim was they didn't consent and had no knowledge. Which was wrong, the information was provided and they did consent. The fact they didn't understand what they consented to is the individuals problem.

Just like that nicotine addicts didn't know cigarettes could likely give them cancer
was their "problem"? Regulate social media — just like other media

I take back what I previously said. Your thinking is more at home in the 18th century, than the 19th.

 

[Blues Man]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

Facebook or any other privately owned business has no legal obligation to protect your right to free speech

 

[Dana7360]

False, people consent to the Term's of Service and Data Policies as part of the registration process.

Consent - Yes, they gave consent when they created an account.

Knowledge - The fact that they didn't read the Terms of Service and Data Policies that were included with the registration process, is not "without their knowledge". The information was available, choosing NOT to read and understand something presented to you is not "without their knowledge".

Nobody "chooses" not to understand. A page of dense, cryptic arcane term of art legalese is hardly informed consent
regardless of what your pretend.

No one forced you to click I read and accept those terms.

You lied to the company when you clicked that box. You are now saying you didn't read it or understand it yet you clicked the box that you agreed with it.

Don't blame the company for your stupidity and lying to them.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

No one forced you to click I read and accept those terms.

You lied to the company when you clicked that box. You are now saying you didn't read it or understand it yet you clicked the box that you agreed with it.

Don't blame the company for your stupidity and lying to them.

My children signed me up years ago to Facebook and I never ever use that account. Did they pore over all the legalese mumbo jumbo and understand anything of what they read, if indeed they read anything at all?
No, like everyone else of course not.

Contracts and legal agreements are drawn up all the time by lawyers with terms of legal art no one but they themselves can understand. That's sort of the whole point and contracts get voided all the time in court because they are incomprehensible to the average person who did not spend years in law school learning to master this art of legal obfuscation.

Wake up and grow up. Get over yourself.

 

[Baz Ares]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

I wonder if that's like the same as how USMB censors
Dem postings? Seems to be legally done here, as a weak way
to keep facts from DOPer readers. So they can sell ad's.
Yep, Protected spew comfort zone for LYING DOPers Alt-Facts to spread..

 

[Toronado3800]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

Thats interesting.

The phone company is not liable if you or I call the other and start some hate speech or plan a robbery. So Facebook isn't....

The phone company has to seve everyone....I think even modern cell companies do. They can raise their prices though until they are declared monopoloes...

Interesting

 

[2aguy]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

Thats interesting.

The phone company is not liable if you or I call the other and start some hate speech or plan a robbery. So Facebook isn't....

The phone company has to seve everyone....I think even modern cell companies do. They can raise their prices though until they are declared monopoloes...

Interesting

The problem Facebook has now, they are editing the content posted on their site...which means they are now a publisher....which means they are subject to liable laws since they control the content on their site....

 

[Toronado3800]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

Thats interesting.

The phone company is not liable if you or I call the other and start some hate speech or plan a robbery. So Facebook isn't....

The phone company has to seve everyone....I think even modern cell companies do. They can raise their prices though until they are declared monopoloes...

Interesting

The problem Facebook has now, they are editing the content posted on their site...which means they are now a publisher....which means they are subject to liable laws since they control the content on their site....

I thought of a difference between Facebook and T Mobil. What is said on Facebook is public. At some point the corner bar still needs to let pro abortion folks in. Neither them nor the church has to let them post a pro abortion banner though.

This is interesting. I am just sprouting random thoughts.

 

[2aguy]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

Thats interesting.

The phone company is not liable if you or I call the other and start some hate speech or plan a robbery. So Facebook isn't....

The phone company has to seve everyone....I think even modern cell companies do. They can raise their prices though until they are declared monopoloes...

Interesting

The problem Facebook has now, they are editing the content posted on their site...which means they are now a publisher....which means they are subject to liable laws since they control the content on their site....

I thought of a difference between Facebook and T Mobil. What is said on Facebook is public. At some point the corner bar still needs to let pro abortion folks in. Neither them nor the church has to let them post a pro abortion banner though.

This is interesting. I am just sprouting random thoughts.

Platform vs. Publisher.....Facebook, Google and the rest are going to learn the difference very quickly...

 

[Toronado3800]

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

Thats interesting.

The phone company is not liable if you or I call the other and start some hate speech or plan a robbery. So Facebook isn't....

The phone company has to seve everyone....I think even modern cell companies do. They can raise their prices though until they are declared monopoloes...

Interesting

The problem Facebook has now, they are editing the content posted on their site...which means they are now a publisher....which means they are subject to liable laws since they control the content on their site....

I thought of a difference between Facebook and T Mobil. What is said on Facebook is public. At some point the corner bar still needs to let pro abortion folks in. Neither them nor the church has to let them post a pro abortion banner though.

This is interesting. I am just sprouting random thoughts.

Platform vs. Publisher.....Facebook, Google and the rest are going to learn the difference very quickly...

This is an issue which refreshingly seems bi partisan also.

 

[skye]

Hawaii won't be far enough for you piece of shit


and for all of you tech pygmies.... ALL OF YOU!

 

[busybee01]

Florida Lawmaker Introduces 'Stop Social Media Censorship Act' to Protect Free Speech Online

This is what Trump's executive order should have looked like. Every state should mirror this effort.

this is an interesting one.

So if Facebook can't control what you say on their property, does my newspaper have to print what I write them?

Do you have a website? Does it have to allow me to post?

On the other hand, I'm all for declaring Facebook a monopoly and putting additional big government regulations on them. Maybe the top 3 social media sites need further regulations than the rest? Seems like an awful liberal "big government" control of corporations thing though. But it may be needed.

This was explained by TheDailyWire's Jeremy Borering.....

A magazine or newspaper controls the content of what they publish, so anything that is libel is their responsibility.

The telephone company doesn't allow edit the content that goes through their system so they aren't responsible for liable.


Facebook claimed they didn't edit content....they do, so they can't hide behind the defense of the phone company, they are actually responsible for what appears on Facebook...if they stop editing content, they would be safe....

Thats interesting.

The phone company is not liable if you or I call the other and start some hate speech or plan a robbery. So Facebook isn't....

The phone company has to seve everyone....I think even modern cell companies do. They can raise their prices though until they are declared monopoloes...

Interesting

The problem Facebook has now, they are editing the content posted on their site...which means they are now a publisher....which means they are subject to liable laws since they control the content on their site....

They are not subject to libel laws. They have every tight to do what they want to do with the site since they own it. They are not publishers.

 

[22lcidw]

Psst - social media is a private company that uses the internet. It dosen't use airwaves.

Psst...the internet is regulated as a public utility. A victory for net neutrality: Why the Internet is an essential public utility

Yes, you are incorrect.

The Constitution prevents speech being inhibited by government entities, not private businesses.

Glad I could help you understand the distinction.

As a public utility the government has every right and duty to see that monopolistic giants like Facebook do NOT favor one point of view and censor the other.
I don't think you yourself understand this distinction.

Psst - The government doesn't regulate the internet as a public utility. Net Neutrality is dead -- >> U.S. 'net neutrality' rules will expire on June 11: FCC | Reuters

The internet isn't a public utility, it is a collection of private businesses. Private business are allowed to censor content and then let the market determine success of failure. Wanting to socialize private entities under government control is a very socialistic desire. No thank you.
.
.
.>>>>

The internet has private companies with very progressive socialist ideas and globalism agendas and it leans that way.

If you don't like it, start an internet that is right leaning.

Venn the /fuhrer comes...the fuhrer comes....vee will be on our way....

Psst - social media is a private company that uses the internet. It dosen't use airwaves.

Psst...the internet is regulated as a public utility. A victory for net neutrality: Why the Internet is an essential public utility

Yes, you are incorrect.

The Constitution prevents speech being inhibited by government entities, not private businesses.

Glad I could help you understand the distinction.

As a public utility the government has every right and duty to see that monopolistic giants like Facebook do NOT favor one point of view and censor the other.
I don't think you yourself understand this distinction.

Psst - The government doesn't regulate the internet as a public utility. Net Neutrality is dead -- >> U.S. 'net neutrality' rules will expire on June 11: FCC | Reuters

The internet isn't a public utility, it is a collection of private businesses. Private business are allowed to censor content and then let the market determine success of failure. Wanting to socialize private entities under government control is a very socialistic desire. No thank you.
.
.
.>>>>

The internet has private companies with very progressive socialist ideas and globalism agendas and it leans that way.

If you don't like it, start an internet that is right leaning.

Turn on zee ovens bodecea...when the fuhrer comes....the fuhrer comes vee will all be on our way....to zee camps! The gas man is ready!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

One is a fool to use Fakebook.

One is a fool to use ANY social media.

Good old fashioned face to face or a phone call gets it done. Unless you are too cowardly to express yourself in person.

Social media is a poison on our society and only serves to embolden cowards to run their mouths.

Not unlike this website