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

[EvMetro]

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.

When worldwide collective monopolies suppress speech on behalf of the government, it is time to have a new look at how to protect our freedom. Our constitutional rights should be protected from loopholes and workarounds, so we need to look very closely at companies who suppress speech on behalf of the government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?

No. USMB can be held civilly liable for unfairly applying TOS, but I don't think USMB meets the definition of social media under the new Florida law.

 

[John T. Ford]

You've been well groomed, even before the 2020 election, to believe that so that you can be easily manipulated.

Do not respond to my comments as if you know what reality is, you are a Leftist who lives in an Alt Left Reality of Fake News.

Run along and find you a Safe Space somewhere.

 

[John T. Ford]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?

No. USMB can be held civilly liable for unfairly applying TOS, but I don't think USMB meets the definition of social media under the new Florida law.

They would have to prove monetary damages.

I don't think hurt feelings qualifies.

 

[colfax_m]

So, when they are sued under this Florida law, they are being sued as a Content Provider, for purposes of Section 230, and therefore, Fed law is not preempting this state law.

Section 230 has nothing to do with this, as I’ve tried explaining to the other poster.

If section 230 didn’t exist, it would still be unconstitutional.

 

[colfax_m]

The federal law does not protect publishers. Sorry.

Let me ask you a simple question. If they aren’t publishers, why do they need protection at all?

they are, snd should be treated like everyone else is the point

The question isn’t well worded so that’s on me.

Who do you think section 230 protects if not publishers?

 

[Faun]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?

No, you have to be a politician running for office. As far as I can tell, Trump is the only politician I'm Florida who's been banned from Twitter and Facebook. Meaning DeSantis passed a law for the benefit of just one Floridian in a state with a population exceeding 22 million. I hope this stunt, which will never raise a penny in fines, bites him next year.

 

[Faun]

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 am watching him closely ....

But, you know Free and Secure Elections are now a thing of the past.

You've been well groomed, even before the 2020 election, to believe that so that you can be easily manipulated.

"Groomed" is a nice way of saying "brainwashed."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When worldwide collective monopolies suppress speech on behalf of the government, it is time to have a new look at how to protect our freedom. Our constitutional rights should be protected from loopholes and workarounds, so we need to look very closely at companies who suppress speech on behalf of the government.

Social media is not a monopoly. There are plenty of them to choose from. USMB is social media. Monopoly rules don't apply because one or two happen to be the most popular.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, when they are sued under this Florida law, they are being sued as a Content Provider, for purposes of Section 230, and therefore, Fed law is not preempting this state law.

Section 230 has nothing to do with this, as I’ve tried explaining to the other poster.

If section 230 didn’t exist, it would still be unconstitutional.

To the extent you or others were claiming federal preemption, I was responding.

As for being unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, it is a stretch to say Florida cannot provide a cause of action for civil liability for social media editing the speech of others in an inconsistent, unfair, or non-transparent manner. Social Media can hardly claim a free speech violation when they are not prohibited from removing content.

 

[EvMetro]

The 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from the gov't. It does not have any effect on what happens on private property.

It is important to note that this distinction does not mean that suppressing speech is not suppression of speech though. Lefties are always quick to point out that it is legal for the private sector to suppress speech, but they never want to accept that suppressing speech is the same thing, regardless of if the government does it or if the private sector does it, or if the private sector does it on behalf of the government. When lefties point out that the private sector can legally suppress speech, it is almost always a strawman argument .

I did not post that as a strawman. I posted it as a factual reason why the law will be challenged.

Indeed, I agree. It does get used as a strawman in every thread about censorship though, including this one.

 

[colfax_m]

So, when they are sued under this Florida law, they are being sued as a Content Provider, for purposes of Section 230, and therefore, Fed law is not preempting this state law.

Section 230 has nothing to do with this, as I’ve tried explaining to the other poster.

If section 230 didn’t exist, it would still be unconstitutional.

To the extent you or others were claiming federal preemption, I was responding.

As for being unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, it is a stretch to say Florida cannot provide a cause of action for civil liability for social media editing the speech of others in an inconsistent, unfair, or non-transparent manner. Social Media can hardly claim a free speech violation when they are not prohibited from removing content.

It’s not a stretch. For starters, they’re not editing the speech of others. Refusing to publish is not editing. If they were truly editing, then there’d be a point.

Deciding not to publish is a first amendment issue. You can’t claim damages for a decision not to publish when you have no right to it.

 

[John T. Ford]

"Groomed" is a nice way of saying "brainwashed."

Leftist ...... who still believe EVERYTHING the Fake News MSM publishes, trying to explain "brainwashing" ....

LMAO now that's rich !!!

 

[EvMetro]

When worldwide collective monopolies suppress speech on behalf of the government, it is time to have a new look at how to protect our freedom. Our constitutional rights should be protected from loopholes and workarounds, so we need to look very closely at companies who suppress speech on behalf of the government.

Social media is not a monopoly. There are plenty of them to choose from. USMB is social media. Monopoly rules don't apply because one or two happen to be the most popular.

I didn't say monopolies, I said collective monopolies. Are you aware of any big tech companies who do not enforce the lefty agenda of the government?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't say monopolies, I said collective monopolies. Are you aware of any big tech companies who do not enforce the lefty agenda of the government?

Yes, it's the platform that people rushed to when Trump got kicked off Twitter and Facebook called Parler. In fact so many people were trying to join at once that it shutdown the system. Google and Apple were so scared to death of it they also shut it down. How they did that I don't really know because I don't follow the tech stuff. But they are up and running again.

 

[EvMetro]

The 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from the gov't. It does not have any effect on what happens on private property.

It is important to note that this distinction does not mean that suppressing speech is not suppression of speech though. Lefties are always quick to point out that it is legal for the private sector to suppress speech, but they never want to accept that suppressing speech is the same thing, regardless of if the government does it or if the private sector does it, or if the private sector does it on behalf of the government. When lefties point out that the private sector can legally suppress speech, it is almost always a strawman argument .

You're utterly confused. The First Amendment restricts the government's ability to suppress free speech of private citizens. So while private companies have the right to suppress free speech as long as they don't discriminate against a protected class, the government has no such right. And since politicians are not a protected class, this bill will be killed after it's hit with its very first lawsuit.

Lol, I was just talking to WinterBorn about this strawman.

 

[EvMetro]

I didn't say monopolies, I said collective monopolies. Are you aware of any big tech companies who do not enforce the lefty agenda of the government?

Yes, it's the platform that people rushed to when Trump got kicked off Twitter and Facebook called Parler. In fact so many people were trying to join at once that it shutdown the system. Google and Apple were so scared to death of it they also shut it down. How they did that I don't really know because I don't follow the tech stuff. But they are up and running again.

Who canceled Parlor's hosting? The original Parlor is gone now, and has been replaced with site that complies with lefty woke agenda on behalf of the government.

 

[miketx]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs law to hold Big Tech companies accountable for content moderation practices

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday signed a measure that he says will protect state residents from Silicon Valley’s “power grab on speech, thought and content.”

www.foxbusiness.com

Smile

So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?

No. USMB can be held civilly liable for unfairly applying TOS, but I don't think USMB meets the definition of social media under the new Florida law.

You mean they ain't socialists! Damn it!

 

[miketx]

You've been well groomed, even before the 2020 election, to believe that so that you can be easily manipulated.

Do not respond to my comments as if you know what reality is, you are a Leftist who lives in an Alt Left Reality of Fake News.

Run along and find you a Safe Space somewhere.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It’s not a stretch. For starters, they’re not editing the speech of others. Refusing to publish is not editing.

"Refusing to publish" is editing content by ANY measure.

Define "editing content" in a way that excludes REMOVING content. I'll wait.

Deciding not to publish is a first amendment issue. You can’t claim damages for a decision not to publish when you have no right to it.

Deciding not to publish WHAT? Why?

Florida has a cause of action for REMOVING content in an unfair or non-transparent manner. It specially points to "bad-faith" actions in those decisions.

While social media can still remove the content or "refuse to publish" content, they will still pay the price. Government cannot restrain speech, but if you slander another, you will pay damages for that free speech.