Florida Gov. DeSantis Has Just Signed A Bill Into Law That Would Allow Everyday Floridians To Sue Big Tech Platforms For Monetary Damages

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How so?

It’s because they’re asking for damages basically for not publishing material.

Social media has a constitutional first amendment right to not publish.

So, what is the constitutional argument here?

Social media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.

They don't have a constitutional right to avoid liability.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here

I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.

What federal law?

 

[colfax_m]

Twitter and Facebook could block their service to anyone from a Florida IP address and put a page up saying they no longer accept the regulations imposed by this bill.

They won’t. They’ll launch an army of lawyers to fight it out in court but that’s what I’d love to see.

 

[colfax_m]

Ain't it a great bill?

No really. I’m against bills that limit freedom of speech. Why do you support limiting freedom of speech? Not a fan of the constitution?

 

[struth]

geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here

I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.

not sure it does...i suppose we will see when it’s litigated

also we will see if the Courts say that the federal law doesn’t protect facebook and tweeter since they are in violation of it now that they are publishing content

 

[colfax_m]

ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.

It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.

This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why, because I don't give a **** about whether social media exists and they only exist because your god, government, gave them a carve-out?

If you don’t give a ****, you wouldn’t be celebrating.

I said I don't give a **** if they exist.

Nuance?

Not giving a **** means that you don’t care one way or the other. It appears to me that you do care if they exist.

No, you thought I said that I don't care about this entire topic. You were mistaken. I do NOT care if social media takes a ******* dirt nap, given the power the owners wield. I don't care if they fail. They actually deserve it. But, if they continue to exist, fine.

 

[colfax_m]

geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here

I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.

What federal law?

Section 230 of course.

 

[Dusty]

Twitter and Facebook could block their service to anyone from a Florida IP address and put a page up saying they no longer accept the regulations imposed by this bill.

They won’t. They’ll launch an army of lawyers to fight it out in court but that’s what I’d love to see.

If they did that they would lose billions of dollars per second in market share so they would never do what you say

 

[colfax_m]

Why, because I don't give a **** about whether social media exists and they only exist because your god, government, gave them a carve-out?

If you don’t give a ****, you wouldn’t be celebrating.

I said I don't give a **** if they exist.

Nuance?

Not giving a **** means that you don’t care one way or the other. It appears to me that you do care if they exist.

No, you thought I said that I don't care about this entire topic. You were mistaken. I do NOT care if social media takes a ******* dirt nap, given the power the owners wield. I don't care if they fail. They actually deserve it. But, if they continue to exist, fine.

Someone who claims they don’t care if they exist sure is emotionally invested in seeing them not exist.

 

[struth]

geez you all could at least know what we are discussing here

I do know. This bill does (and can’t) preempt federal law.

What federal law?

Section 230 of course.

Section 230 protects “bulletin boards” - not publishers. We shall see when this law is litigated if the courts find facebook and tweeter has moved beyond their immunity protections.

 

[colfax_m]

also we will see if the Courts say that the federal law doesn’t protect facebook and tweeter since they are in violation of it now that they are publishing content

They’ve always published content. The federal law says they don’t take on the liability of being a publisher. I know it’s confusing but that’s the truth.

State law can’t undo federal law.

This law doesn’t even attempt it. The damages come from Twitter and Facebook removing content. It lets people sue for damages incurred by not being able to use their service.

 

[colfax_m]

Section 230 protects “bulletin boards” - not publishers. We shall see when this law is litigated if the courts find facebook and tweeter has moved beyond their immunity protections

No. It protects publishers. If they weren’t moderating content, they’d have no need for protection in the first place.

Jesus, people really don’t understand this issue.

 

[WinterBorn]

This forum is a perfect example of a PLATFORM. It does NOT censor speech, with the infrequent exception of when one calls for another to be murdered or for posting something pornographic, etc. Users here CAN and DO criticize masks, vaccines, etc.

Speech is quite free here in USMB. It should shine as an example to the other idiots out there (Political Jack, Political Hotwire, etc)

Nope, not free. There's a graveyard of posters who've been permanently banned.

And why were they permanently banned? For repeatedly breaking clearly stated rules?

You break the rules for not posting on topic all the time old man, so ban yourself

I have posted off topic, that much is true. But it was always in response to your comments. So if I wanted to be that strict about people posting off topic, I would ban you the first time you did it, instead of responding to it.

Should you have the right to post off topic then ban someone for answering your off topic post, if your babbles meant anything you would ban yourself.

Try actually responding to what I said.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

ocial media has a constitutional right to not publish. That is not being barred.

It sure is. The government is assigning fines if they don’t publish elected officials and subjecting them to civil liability for not publishing.

This bill has nothing to do with slander and libel.

It's not barring their right to NOT publish. They are not publishers, right? It is barring the "right" to stop users from publishing on the platform.

Unless you are admitting that social media is NOT a platform, but a publisher. That's what it looks like here.

 

[colfax_m]

they did that they would lose billions of dollars per second in market share so they would never do what you say

Facebook and Twitter are global companies. Florida is barely going to register.

 

[Dusty]

Ain't it a great bill?

No really. I’m against bills that limit freedom of speech. Why do you support limiting freedom of speech? Not a fan of the constitution?

This bill does not limit speech, it allows for more speech. Something that irritates you.

 

[WinterBorn]

Try reading DeSantis law.

I am a big fan of DeSantis and I like the spirit of the law, I'm just not sure of its constitutionality.

Legally speaking, why shouldn't YouTube be permitted to ban content that it dislikes?

Because the American Communist Party has the power to kill people who say what it doesn't like and financially reward those that it does like. The end result is a massive loss of freedom for the people with the alternate viewpoint. So the constitution is the problem as it was not written when words could travel around the world instantly OR vanish instantly. So the people that are not heard are not really there if no one hears. All have the right to be heard

The US Constitution was also written at a time when private property was respected and the owner of that private property could decide what happens on it.

Actually the constitution was written because private property was not respected. Try reading a history book instead of the cigarette label

The Bill of Rights is not about private property and what can be done there. It is about limiting the government's power.

 

[colfax_m]

Ain't it a great bill?

No really. I’m against bills that limit freedom of speech. Why do you support limiting freedom of speech? Not a fan of the constitution?

This bill does not limit speech, it allows for more speech. Something that irritates you.

It limits the speech of Facebook and Twitter who are required to publish speech they don’t want to.

The freedom of speech also means the freedom not to speak.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Amen to that. I keep saying Desantis would be a great president,If he got elected,this would feel like America again instead of a communist dictatership as we have seen from the likes of Bush,Obama and now Biden and the previous five administrations from 1981 all the way up to 2016.

I couldn't agree more. Every state should have a DeSantis running it. I especially like what he did with the protester law that he signed. If any protester is blocking the road, you have the right to drive right through them with impunity. That should be a national law.

On the other side of the coin, I don't agree with this one. It's not his place to dictate how a worldwide business should operate.