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

[Faun]

"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 !!!

Now you're projecting.

Sad, really.

 

[evenflow1969]

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

Lol, ever heard of unenforceable laws? The internet crosses state and international lines Florida can not force it's will across the world. Great publicity stunt though. Dumb ***** will believe it has some sort of meaning

 

[Dusty]

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?

Forums like this that violate the law will be subject to legal scrutiny.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous. If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

Social media has a right to not to publish the shit posts or whatever content that is being taken down and has y’all so upset. There is no constitutional requirement that anyone’s speech be fair or transparent. Social media, by publishing content, is an exercise of speech. Saying they have a right but will “pay a price” is a contradiction. If you pay a price, that’s not a right.

 

[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?

Forums like this that violate the law will be subject to legal scrutiny.

There will be no legal scrutiny. Not on this site, not on any other.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous.

What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?

If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?

Fine. They are not editing (******* bullshit but whatever). They can be held liable for "refusing to publish" if they do so in a way that is unfair or non-transparent.

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Social media, by publishing content, is an exercise of speech. Saying they have a right but will “pay a price” is a contradiction. If you pay a price, that’s not a right.

So, you are against all defamation laws or for that matter any law that requires one to pay for a "license" to exercise the right to arms?

 

[colfax_m]

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Where is the right to free speech contingent on being “fair”?

If you are placing contingencies on a right, you are restricting it. That’s exactly what this bill is doing.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Where is the right to free speech contingent on being “fair”?

If you are placing contingencies on a right, you are restricting it. That’s exactly what this bill is doing.

So, defamation causes of action are unconstitutional?

 

[colfax_m]

Social media, by publishing content, is an exercise of speech. Saying they have a right but will “pay a price” is a contradiction. If you pay a price, that’s not a right.

So, you are against all defamation laws or for that matter any law that requires one to pay for a "license" to exercise the right to arms?

Actually defamation laws have been whittled away significantly over the centuries.

Defamation is a balance between the right to protect your good name and free speech. Over time, courts have out more and more emphasis on free speech.

What is so different here is that this is a law that is attempting to compel speech.

 

[Dusty]

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?

Forums like this that violate the law will be subject to legal scrutiny.

There will be no legal scrutiny. Not on this site, not on any other.

Denial is always the first reaction.

 

[colfax_m]

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Where is the right to free speech contingent on being “fair”?

If you are placing contingencies on a right, you are restricting it. That’s exactly what this bill is doing.

So, defamation causes of action are unconstitutional?

At least call a spade a spade. I don’t get to pretend that this bill doesn’t limit freedom of speech.

 

[Faun]

good for him....**** the LYING, SCUM, demonRATS....
can't wait to hear those scum whine about this

LOL

Who's whining? I can't wait for him to try to fine a private company for flexing their Constitutionally provided First Amendment rights.

 

[miketx]

Lol, ever heard of unenforceable laws?

No all I've heard of are laws that leftist politician scum won't enforce.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, I mention ad hominem attacks in passing, and what do you do in your very next post. Level a personal insult, of course.

You guys are SO predictable.

BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I've never been a Democrat.

Your belief that you don't do ad hominems couldn't be more absurd.

I spent decades trying to get leftists to explain leftism to me. I thought there must be some system that I could grasp if I only understood the rules, what they were looking for. Eventually I realized they were just fascists and wanted their way no matter what it took to get it.

At some point I snapped and started treating hate filled Democrats like Mustang back what they dish out, nothing but attacks. Until they stop, there will be no discussion. I'm sick of their hate shit

The only thing that you have done for decades is live at mom’s house .

LOL, another insult you stole from someone else. You live at your moms! That's pretty funny, but not for the reason you think

 

[Faun]

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous.

What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?

If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?

Fine. They are not editing (******* bullshit but whatever). They can be held liable for "refusing to publish" if they do so in a way that is unfair or non-transparent.

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Who says they have to be fair?

 

[struth]

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?

Internet "bulletin board" - the law outlines it very clearly what the intent is....under subsection (B)

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, that's funny. They've been riding the fence for too long.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Where is the right to free speech contingent on being “fair”?

If you are placing contingencies on a right, you are restricting it. That’s exactly what this bill is doing.

So, defamation causes of action are unconstitutional?

At least call a spade a spade. I don’t get to pretend that this bill doesn’t limit freedom of speech.

It doesn't. Nowhere does it say Facebook et al cannot do as it pleases. There is no prior restraint. There is no restraint at all.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Editing can include removing material from a piece, but deciding not to publish isn’t editing and the idea that it could be is beyond ridiculous.

What do you call the person at the news paper who decides not to publish an article?

If I write a book and Simon and Schuster decides not to publish it, they sure as hell haven’t edited it. They are not changing or altering the text at all. Period. They’re just not dealing with it.

And the people deciding not to publish it would be.......editors?

Fine. They are not editing (******* bullshit but whatever). They can be held liable for "refusing to publish" if they do so in a way that is unfair or non-transparent.

We can sing and dance all day long about social media's right to free speech, but they are NOT being denied the right. They are simply being held civilly liable for unfair or non-transparent "bad faith" moderating.

Who says they have to be fair?

They don't. Who says they can't pay for their unfair actions? NOBODY!!!