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

[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?

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

The Constitution says so. The Constitution grants them freedom of speech.

 

[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?

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

 

[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!!!

The Constitution says so. The Constitution grants them freedom of speech.

Show me.

Social Media is not being restricted. They are being TAXED!!!

 

[dblack]

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

Ahh.. so they can do what they want except that they can't. Makes a lot of sense. Do you want government to run everything in society? Or just social media?

 

[kaz]

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

Ahh.. so they can do what they want except that they can't. Makes a lot of sense. Do you want government to run everything in society? Or just social media?

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits. There is nothing libertarian about that. Not that you'd know anything about what is libertarian

 

[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.

Denial is always the first reaction.

I'm looking forward to my celebration at watching the Judicary dismantle that infringement of the First Amendment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

Ahh.. so they can do what they want except that they can't. Makes a lot of sense. Do you want government to run everything in society? Or just social media?

No, they can do what they want. They just have to be open about it or they can be held liable for failure to do so.

Are you advocating for no more tort liability of any kind? It sounded like it. Car manufacturers can no longer exercise freedom of expression by creating a shitty car that explodes on impact because people can sue for damages? HOW DARE YOU? YOU AUTHORITARIAN!!!

 

[Faun]

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

 

[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?

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

Show me.

 

[kaz]

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

Ahh.. so they can do what they want except that they can't. Makes a lot of sense. Do you want government to run everything in society? Or just social media?

No, they can do what they want. They just have to be open about it or they can be held liable BY INDIVIDUALS (not government) for failure to do so.

Are you advocating for no more tort liability of any kind? It sounded like it. Car manufacturers can no longer exercise freedom of expression by creating a shitty car that explodes on impact because people can sue for damages? HOW DARE YOU? YOU AUTHORITARIAN!!!

If dblack were to argue that the government needs to stop funding the internet and providing social media with taxpayer funded free access to their customers as well as expanding bandwidth, and then they can in exchange for that decide not to serve the taxpayers funding their business, then he'd have an argument.

Of course dblack being a left wing Democrat suck up doesn't argue that

 

[Faun]

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

Show me.

It fines them if they fail to comply with the law. That's compelling.

 

[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?

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

Show me.

It fines them if they fail to comply with the law. That's compelling.

Show me. You haven't looked at it, have you?

It is essentially a campaign finance TAX for providing a BENEFIT to one political candidate and not the other.

 

[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.

I'm looking forward to my celebration at watching the Judicary dismantle that infringement of the First Amendment.

There is no first Amendment, or second so dismantling something that is not real is not possible

 

[kaz]

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

Show me.

It fines them if they fail to comply with the law. That's compelling.

Show me. You haven't looked at it, have you?

It is essentially a campaign finance TAX for providing a BENEFIT to one political candidate and not the other.

That is true. Taxpayers fund all this, then they use it to serve one party. It's a pathetic system.

I like the initiative to run ads slamming Coke, Delta and other corporations that are doing the same thing.

I don't want corporations to support Republicans, just say out of it. Let the people decide

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm here to discuss this thread topic and how unconstitutional DeSantis' law is.

Well, when are you going to start discussing it?

What is the basis of your unconstitutionality claim? Give specifics.

 

[Faun]

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.

Get off your bullshit attempts to downplay the roll of defamation causes of action and how they interact with free speech. IT'S THE SAME!!!

The law is not compelling ANYTHING. The law is providing an avenue of compensation at law or in equity for those who qualify.

Social Media can still do what they want, as long as they come out and disclose to all users that "we are ******* commies and we will monitor and remove anything that does not support the goals of global communism and the CCP."

"The law is not compelling ANYTHING."

Bullshit. The law is compelling private companies to publish anything a politician wants to say, no matter how much their comments infringe on their terms of service.

Show me.

It fines them if they fail to comply with the law. That's compelling.

Show me. You haven't looked at it, have you?

It is essentially a campaign finance TAX for providing a BENEFIT to one political candidate and not the other.

"Essentially"

LOLOL

It's a fine for banning politicians for more than 14 days.

Sorry, the government can't tell them who can or cannot be members as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class -- and politician is not a protected class.

 

[Faun]

I'm here to discuss this thread topic and how unconstitutional DeSantis' law is.

Well, when are you going to start discussing it?

What is the basis of your unconstitutionality claim? Give specifics.

Already said. It's government overreach into the privates' Constitutionally provided First Amendment rights.

And it only benefits one person in a state of more than 22 million... Donald Trump.

 

[dblack]

The question is why they are exempted from lawsuits.

They're not exempted from lawsuits. 230 just establishes that they're not liable for what people post.
I've been clear that I think they should repeal 230. It's unnecessary. But that won't give you want you want (petty revenge on the big tech companies who booted Trump). And when it doesn't, you'll be reaching for some other big government solution to your problems. You guys aren't arguing from principle, you're just pissy because your troll hero got banned. Too bad.

 

[dblack]

Sorry, the government can't tell them who can or cannot be members as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class -- and politician is not a protected class.

You blow pretty much all your credibility with "It's different when we do it" bit at the end.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I just went to their site and it's still there. Never joined up, but from what I understand, they don't take political sides. Liberals and conservatives have the ability to post virtually anything they want.