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.

Rule 230 says they can't.

Except it doesn't state what you think it does...

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[dblack]

It's a violation of freedom, that's enough for me to oppose it.

No, it is NOT. Social media can ban whomever or whatever, as long as they are transparent and consistent. And even if they are not, its civil liability, not government action.

What? Who says? Which law? Does USMB also have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in its moderation??

The Florida Law. Read it.

Don't be specious. We're debating whether that law is valid and/or justified.

Outside of statist mandates, there is no such requirement, and would be insane to implement. As bad as USMB moderation is sometimes, I sure as hell don't want the government taking over.

If USMB meets the criteria for being "social media" as defined, it too must disclose what content will be banned and be consistent in so doing or be sued.

Yeah. "Criteria". Gotta love regulation twiddling.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Unfortunately these Big Tech companies have got so big and become an everyday part of American life that they have to be held accountable for being shitheads.

Get Congress to update the laws.

Good luck.

We can do it here in Florida by ourselves, thank you very much.

These filthy ass companies can be Nazis elsewhere.

Update the laws? You mean change the Constitution for Trump trash?Well, that's Florida for you.

you really are deranged...pay attention---florida can not change the constitution, its a federal thing, not a florida thing
they can change THEIR laws to protect THEIR citizens from the likes of the scum demonRAT assholes...

For the life of me, I can't figure out what these fools think the Constitution has to do with this.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It simply requires disclosure and consistent moderation OR pay damages.

Which is an unconstitutional abridgment of their freedom of speech.

No it is not. What part of that law is limiting Facebook's free speech?

Providing a tort claim for Facebook failing to disclose what continent they will edit is not limiting Facebook free speech. Providing a tort cause of action for Facebook failing to apply consistent application of its moderation practices is not a violation of Facebook free speech.

You need to take your ass back to law school.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

JUST IN - Florida Gov. DeSantis has just signed a bill into law that would allow everyday Floridians to sue Big Tech Platforms for monetary damages.​

Is Florida going to cover their legal bills when they lose?

We have plenty of lawyers down here in Florida, and no one has to pay unless those lawyers win the case....Just like the big case with Tobacco quite a few years ago, you can bet those hungry lawyers are getting ready for a very big pay day....

At Morgan & Morgan, we believe everyone is entitled to quality legal representation regardless of how much money they make. Our attorneys work on a contingency-fee basis — we don’t get paid unless you win — so that you can afford to hire an excellent attorney to protect your interests.

Frequently Asked Questions | Morgan & Morgan Law Firm​

View attachment 493074
www.forthepeople.com/faq/general/

You won’t find anything but a D grade ambulance chaser to take one of these on a contingency.

If they win, who cares? I think there are plenty of good lawyers who would find a target as big as Facebook very attractive.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.

Meta Terms of Service

The Meta Terms govern your use of Facebook, Messenger, and the other products, features, apps, services, technologies, and software we offer.

www.facebook.com

The terms are illegal. Communications law does not allow them to censor for anything that isn't illegal.

It’s not so much illegals as it is false enducement.
if their terms of service simply said “we reserve right to censor political commentary that we do t agree with” then Everyone would have knowledge beforehand about what they are signing up for. Conservative Cave you know what you are getting into
Facebook seeks you out and then once you are in you find out what they are about
That’s wrong and that’s what this bill will fix with none of the frantic pearl clutching aftereffects that libs are suggesting

 

[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?

Rule 230 does

Don't just say it -- quote it...

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[dblack]

Because the so-called "moderators" are all biased douchebags like you.

This is why we can’t have nice things.

There's nothing nice about your police state censorship.

A police state is different than a webpage. No shit. Look it up.

 

[colfax_m]

There's nothing nice about your police state censorship.

Facebook isn’t the state, it’s private industry.

There’s a difference even someone as ignorant as you can figure out.

 

[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.

We'll see when it happens. I'll bet the Facebook won't dare to censor any politicians. They don't want to test the law and lose.

LOLOL

Facebook is laughing at DeSantis.

Facebook has the right to block any content which violates their terms of service. That includes politicians.

 

[colfax_m]

Providing a tort claim for Facebook failing to disclose what continent they will edit is not limiting Facebook free speech. Providing a tort cause of action for Facebook failing to apply consistent application of its moderation practices is not a violation of Facebook free speech.

Because it places an obligation on Facebook’s speech. Imagine if I passed a law saying that you have to be consistent in your speech or else I can sue you.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Rule 230 does

Don't just say it -- quote it...

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

​

Common carrier - Wikipedia​

​

A common carrier (also called a public carrier in British English)[3] is distinguished from a contract carrier, which is a carrier that transports goods for only a certain number of clients and that can refuse to transport goods for anyone else, and from a private carrier. A common carrier holds itself out to provide service to the general public without discrimination (to meet the needs of the regulator's quasi judicial role of impartiality toward the public's interest) for the "public convenience and necessity." A common carrier must further demonstrate to the regulator that it is "fit, willing, and able" to provide those services for which it is granted authority. Common carriers typically transport persons or goods according to defined and published routes, time schedules, and rate tables upon the approval of regulators. Public airlines, railroads, bus lines, taxicab companies, phone companies, internet service providers,[4] cruise ships, motor carriers (i.e., canal operating companies, trucking companies), and other freight companies generally operate as common carriers. Under US law, an ocean freight forwarder cannot act as a common carrier.[3]​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's a violation of freedom, that's enough for me to oppose it.

No, it is NOT. Social media can ban whomever or whatever, as long as they are transparent and consistent. And even if they are not, its civil liability, not government action.

What? Who says? Which law? Does USMB also have a legal duty to be transparent and consistent in its moderation??

The Florida Law. Read it.

Don't be specious. We're debating whether that law is valid and/or justified.

Outside of statist mandates, there is no such requirement, and would be insane to implement. As bad as USMB moderation is sometimes, I sure as hell don't want the government taking over.

If USMB meets the criteria for being "social media" as defined, it too must disclose what content will be banned and be consistent in so doing or be sued.

Yeah. "Criteria". Gotta love regulation twiddling.

it's a good thing this is not a government takeover.

This is merely providing an avenue for private citizens to bring a civil action in tort against social media for failure to disclose moderation dos and don'ts, and failure to apply them consistently.

You're acting as if any kind of tort cause of action provided by government is the height of goose-stepping authoritarianism. It is no such thing.

A car manufacturers can't just make a dangerous piece of shit that blows up and kills everybody, just because the car manufacturer owns the business and has artistic liberty to do whatever it wants, without being held liqble for damages their POS causes. Government will not be stopping them from making what they want, but certainly would be providing an avenue for recovery from those who were injured by that piece of shit.

See the difference?

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

How about a hydroxychloroquine and bleach cocktail for people to inject.

The claim that Trump endorsed that is propaganda, asshole.

LOLOL..Of course he did .. Look at his all night Tweet tantrums and his every day TV appearances. Look at his medical advice and his attacks on women.

and lets not forget the groping of little girls by beijing xiden

Facebook would remove this post but allow claims that Trump is having sex with his daughter.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

We'll see when it happens. I'll bet the Facebook won't dare to censor any politicians. They don't want to test the law and lose.

LOLOL

Facebook is laughing at DeSantis.

Facebook has the right to block any content which violates their terms of service. That includes politicians.

No they don't.

 

[Faun]

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.

You complaints have nothing to do with the Constitution. You are merely defending the ability of the left to censor conservatives, you ******* NAZI.

Liars, slanderers, conspiracy theorists and those promoting violence shouldn't be given a venue regardless of their political affiliation.

Let them shout it to the heavens, but newspapeers won't give them creedence either.

We have a First Amendment that says otherwise. Slander has always been actionable. The rest is merely speech that Dim NAZIs such as you don't like.

Newspapers can be sued, moron. You've already been told that 1000 time.

Slander is an oral defamation, ******* moron.

Not permitting members to post on their service for violating their terms of service is not that.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

You do realize that Facebook allows slander, lies, conspiracy theories, etc but only if these favor a certain political party. I guess you forgot to mention that part. They are not applying their policy in good faith, as they are required by section 230. Therein lies the problem. Either they equally apply their rules or they lose 230 protection. It is as simple as that.

Exactly and libbies are desperately trying to dance around that and failing.
Facebook invites you in, presenting itself as a communication platform. Nowhere does it require you to acknowledge that fact or opinion shares are subject to censure.
Then, when you begin to post pro Trump commentary you are suddenly censored or removed

thats the problem, that’s the illegality, that’s the one way street of communication, and that’s the silly and outrageous babying that Facebook is trying to impose .

Ever read the terms before you click, I Agree? I don't.

Meta Terms of Service

The Meta Terms govern your use of Facebook, Messenger, and the other products, features, apps, services, technologies, and software we offer.

www.facebook.com

That’s the typical boilerplate. There is nothing that stipulates their right or even ability to remove political posts that are conservative in content
They practice deceit.

Yep, they're in business to make money, not save representative Democracy in the world. They cover all their bases and give the user the feeling that they have some kind of rights too.

But I don't think those who espouse limited government, lower taxes and less government spending, free market and individual liberty get removed.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

​

Lol! Even Dotard’s 6-3 SCOTUS ain’t gonna take away social media’s 1st amendment right to set their own rules.
This baby is DOA. Tell Trumpy Boy in FL to spend his time on something semi-constructive

Libbies fear this very much. Their safe space would have holes in it and they would have to endure the sights and sounds of differing experiences and opinions.
Just pretend is some more Covid and go hide.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Providing a tort claim for Facebook failing to disclose what continent they will edit is not limiting Facebook free speech. Providing a tort cause of action for Facebook failing to apply consistent application of its moderation practices is not a violation of Facebook free speech.

Because it places an obligation on Facebook’s speech. Imagine if I passed a law saying that you have to be consistent in your speech or else I can sue you.

first off, this is not a first amendment issue. You will get your ******* ass laugh the **** out of court if you take this in as a first amendment issue. It is not. This is a tort liability issue. This is not government action limiting free speech. Far from it. It is simply providing an avenue for recovery. That has consistently been held to not be a limit on free speech.

Even if it were a first amendment issue, all speech has liability obligations attached to it.

Defamation?

 

[bripat9643]

Providing a tort claim for Facebook failing to disclose what continent they will edit is not limiting Facebook free speech. Providing a tort cause of action for Facebook failing to apply consistent application of its moderation practices is not a violation of Facebook free speech.

Because it places an obligation on Facebook’s speech. Imagine if I passed a law saying that you have to be consistent in your speech or else I can sue you.

Facebook incurred that obligation when it declared itself to be a "common carrier." That's the only reason it is supposedly exempt from lawsuits. If it wants to be a publisher, then it can be sued.