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

[bripat9643]

Hopefuly in a few days after Facebook and/or Twitter lawyers have reviewed the matter we'll have a good fight to witness.

Steven Crowder has already filed a $10 million lawsuit.

Seems like a gift lawsuit to whoever he is suing. I'll go with Crowder not getting even a dime.

Really? It will get appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, and we already know how that deck is stacked.

 

[bripat9643]

The totalitarians demand their BIGLIE be given equal access.

They say **** the First Amendment, you will obey or pay!

You're the totalitarian, NAZI. You're perfectly happy with censorship of your political opponents.

Faux News is still on the air. BrietPhart is still on the web along with that Nasty Alex Jones Turd and his shit eating Web Site. Along with countless other Fascist supporting media/news sites.

So? How does that prove the youTube and Facebook aren't censoring?

Who said they weren't or haven't been. Banning the Faithless GOP politicians isn't censorship. Forcing the media platforms to host their political views is.

A Brief History of YouTube Censorship

For as long as it has existed, YouTube has been under pressure from different governments to remove a wide range of content.

www.vice.com

You are exactly right. These social media platforms are private companies. Just like a private company can kick out a Karen that refuses to wear a mask, a private company can ban an individual spouting damn near anything that private company is against. It always amazes me how Trumpsters in particular, and those on the right in general, are more than willing to abandon their principles concerning the rights of individuals and private companies, when and if it serves their purpose. If a private company, for religious reasons, can refuse to provide birth control coverage for their employees, then a private company, for whatever damn reason, can refuse to broadcast racism, calls to violence, or obvious falsehoods. This law has no way of surviving a court challenge, and rest assured, Facebook and the rest will seek to adjudicate this law at the first opportunity.

Not according to Rule 230, moron.

I love the way all you Komrades suddenly decided you worship the free market. We all know it's a con.

 

[struth]

I love this solution. It won't matter if Blue states don't follow suit. All the red state lawsuits will bankrupt the Big tech companies.

​

The big tech companies are not basecd in Florida. They cannot enforce it across state lines. It is meaningless.

Another conservative who's a constitutional illiterate.

Another fascist Democrat who ignores the Constitution until it serves you.

I actually agree that the Constitutionality of the law is dubious. But wow, your hypocrisy compared to the left silencing free speech just REEKS

Republicans are the ones silencing free speech.

this is not a Republican or Democrat thing.

Why should big tech get a government liability shield? What interest does that serve?

Big tech fucked up. Big tech should not have been playing the games they were playing. Now they get no liability protection.

I'll be sure to work up some tears and snot on behalf of big tech and their loss of government protection. How sad.

This is very juvenile.. Facebook doesn't want to be a party to lies and slander, character assassination dangerous medical advice.. They have that right. You should start your own platform that admires that sort of garbage.

well that’s not true. they simply want to be a party to the views they agree with and censor others
which is fine and their right

they can publish and edit whatever they want

but they should be treated just like other publishers and not get extra protections and immunities

There's a place for lies, slander, dangerous medical advice, personal attacks and insane conspiracy theories. Maybe Conservative Treehouse or WMD would be appropriate for Trump.

maybe

but that doesn’t negate the fact that all that takes place on facebook and tweeter as well, and they shouldn’t be above the law and protected from liability

That's the point.. Facebook doesn't want the liability associated with lies, slander and bad medical advice. Trump needs to take that on himself.. He's trying to undermine the election process. Facebook doesn't want to be party to that.

Trump should take on the liability of his lies and conspiracy theories.

Lies and slander are already illegal. What you mean by "fake medical advice" is anything that contradicts Democrat Reich propaganda. Contradicting government propaganda is one of the main reasons we have a First Amendment, asshole.

The sad thing is that the poster, and people like him take medical advice from tweeter and facebook

 

[kaz]

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.

All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.

The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.

I'm not particularly interested in the legal technicalities. It's the overarching goal that bothers me. Government shouldn't be dictating to media companies. Period.

I agree, but that is exactly what they are doing. Social media is being used as a tool.

All media can be used as a "tool". What exactly are you claiming? And why does it justify laws that dictate to social media?

Should people be able to buy ads for one candidate without recognizing it as a contribution to that candidate? If so, why should companies be able to provide direct political benefits without recognizing that as a contribution?

You never addressed his point

 

[bripat9643]

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.

All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.

The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.

I'm not particularly interested in the legal technicalities. It's the overarching goal that bothers me. Government shouldn't be dictating to media companies. Period.

Of course you're not "interested in the legal technicalities." The system is working for Democrats and against Republicans as it is. You're happy. Freeze it where it is

Trump has LOST most of his 4,000 lawsuits over the years and stiffs his lawyers.. He'll never get top tier legal representation. Just like US banks won't touch him.

That's a big ******* lie. He filed about half of them, moron.

Your favorite debate tactict is just making stuff up.

 

[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?

So you want to abolish Rule 230?

Yep. It's just one of those convenience laws. Removing it will shake things up for a little while. It will **** over smaller websites (like this one) that don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal. But in the end, precedents will be set, EULA's will be massaged, and life will go on. Removing 230 won't be the silver bullet you're hoping. It won't harm FB and Twitter.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Their terms of service violate rule 230.

 

[dblack]

Should people be able to buy ads for one candidate without recognizing it as a contribution to that candidate? If so, why should companies be able to provide direct political benefits without recognizing that as a contribution?

You never addressed his point

Yeah, I don't really care. That kind of campaign finance regulation is just another way for the state to suppress dissent. People and companies should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns however the like.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

So you want to abolish Rule 230?

Yep. It's just one of those convenience laws. Removing it will shake things up for a little while. It will ****** smaller websites (like this one) that don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal. But in the end, precedents will be set, EULA's will be massaged, and life will go on. Removing 230 won't be the silver bullet you're hoping. It won't harm FB and Twitter.

All Desantis is doing is disabling rule 230. So how can you attack Desantis when you claim to oppose Rule 230?

 

[dblack]

Nope. These companies don't make money of the people who post on their website. The "customers" in social media are ad companies. Users are the product.

Bro....read what you just wrote AGAIN.

Well, if there's a contract being violated, I'm sure the lawyers can work that out.

Can they? Well, they can now. In Florida anyway.

They can work it out regardless. DeSantis' grandstanding has no bearing on that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

In other words, they are exempted from lawsuits.

Why do you even bother to post when you are so obviously wrong.

 

[kaz]

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.

All I am saying is the key part of the law grants to individuals a cause of action. That's it.

The part about mandatory platforming of a candidate is somewhat suspect under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but an account is free and costs social media no more to platform, so it's a difficult claim.

I'm not particularly interested in the legal technicalities. It's the overarching goal that bothers me. Government shouldn't be dictating to media companies. Period.

Of course you're not "interested in the legal technicalities." The system is working for Democrats and against Republicans as it is. You're happy. Freeze it where it is

Trump has LOST most of his 4,000 lawsuits over the years and stiffs his lawyers.. He'll never get top tier legal representation. Just like US banks won't touch him.

What a load of crap, your typical fare. Doesn't the smell bother you?

 

[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?

So you want to abolish Rule 230?

Yep. It's just one of those convenience laws. Removing it will shake things up for a little while. It will ****** smaller websites (like this one) that don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal. But in the end, precedents will be set, EULA's will be massaged, and life will go on. Removing 230 won't be the silver bullet you're hoping. It won't harm FB and Twitter.

All Desantis is doing is disabling rule 230. So how can you attack Desantis when you claim to oppose Rule 230?

The law prohibiting them from suspending political candidates has exactly nothing to do with 230 and is a radical abuse of state power.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Qit pretending you give a damn about the First Amendment. You support government protected censorship. That much is clear.

 

[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.

Only if they function as a "common carrier." They aren't doing that when they censor content because they disagree with it.

Can't care.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

So you want to abolish Rule 230?

Yep. It's just one of those convenience laws. Removing it will shake things up for a little while. It will ****** smaller websites (like this one) that don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal. But in the end, precedents will be set, EULA's will be massaged, and life will go on. Removing 230 won't be the silver bullet you're hoping. It won't harm FB and Twitter.

All Desantis is doing is disabling rule 230. So how can you attack Desantis when you claim to oppose Rule 230?

The law prohibiting them from suspending political candidates has exactly nothing to do with 230 and is a radical abuse of state power.

The rule allowing people to sue Big tech companies has everything to do with Rule 230, asshat.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Only if they function as a "common carrier." They aren't doing that when they censor content because they disagree with it.

Can't care.

We already know you don't care about the facts.

 

[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.

In other words, they are exempted from lawsuits.

Those are "other words", but they're wrong. They aren't exempted from lawsuits. Period. You're lying. Or just too dumb to understand the law.

 

[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?

So you want to abolish Rule 230?

Yep. It's just one of those convenience laws. Removing it will shake things up for a little while. It will ****** smaller websites (like this one) that don't have an army of lawyers at their disposal. But in the end, precedents will be set, EULA's will be massaged, and life will go on. Removing 230 won't be the silver bullet you're hoping. It won't harm FB and Twitter.

All Desantis is doing is disabling rule 230. So how can you attack Desantis when you claim to oppose Rule 230?

The law prohibiting them from suspending political candidates has exactly nothing to do with 230 and is a radical abuse of state power.

The rule allowing people to sue Big tech companies has everything to do with Rule 230, asshat.

Sorry.. you're too stupid to competently discuss the issue.

 

[kaz]

Should people be able to buy ads for one candidate without recognizing it as a contribution to that candidate? If so, why should companies be able to provide direct political benefits without recognizing that as a contribution?

You never addressed his point

Yeah, I don't really care. That kind of campaign finance regulation is just another way for the state to suppress dissent. People and companies should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns however the like.

Of course you don't care. If you read your posts, every argument is literally based on this. When the current system works for Democrats, you throw out some libertarian sounding BS justifying the current system. You only want it changed if it isn't working for Democrats, then you throw out libertarian sounding BS to justify "fixing" it ... for Democrats.

Every argument you make follows that logic.

EVERYONE sees that, which is why Democrats love you and everyone else doesn't. The only person who doesn't see your crap for what it is would be you