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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Huh, you like a system where Democrats speak freely and Republicans are being silenced. Who saw that coming?

This is the ONLY reason they are all so pissed off. They hate having to convince anyone with logic. They prefer the iron fist be applied to all opposition speech. Anything threatening their little safe space is inherently bad.

 

[Mustang]

Here's what a conservative illiterate posted about this particular subject yesterday:

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

What makes the post so mind-numbingly obtuse is the fact that, when it comes to federal law, state lines are irrelevant.

But, social media is doing business in Florida because Florida consumers use social media. Social media will therefore be subject to Florida laws. Federal law is irrelevant here.

The "explicit words" of a constitution written in the 18th century needs to be interpreted in a 21st century world where living standards are so different but human beings and our natures are essentially the same as people from 250 years earlier. As an example, that means that a right to privacy today has to be interpreted based on the digital era we live in and not just an earlier era of hand-written correspondence.

Yes, but if something in the Constitution does not work well with the modern era, there's a way to fix it so that it does. It's call the amendment process.

Tell me, is it stupidity, or is it ignorance on your part that makes you think that a state can legally supersede a federal law?

It doesn't really matter since it's just one more example of conservatives willingness to ignore the constitution and embrace any unconstitutional idea to get what they want.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You ******* pettifogger.

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb ****. You don't understand analogous arguments.

Let me explain it to you.

Just like defamation DOES NOT limit free speech, but provides for tort liability on said speech, this Florida law DOES NOT limit what Facebook can ban, but provides for tort liability if Facebook does not disclose and moderate consistently.

See? This is called an analogous argument. Any questions?

He feels your response does not quell his feelings

 

[kaz]

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb ****. You don't understand analogous arguments.

Let me explain it to you.

Just like defamation DOES NOT limit free speech, but provides for tort liability on said speech, this Florida law DOES NOT limit what Facebook can ban, but provides for tort liability if Facebook does not disclose and moderate consistently.

See? This is called an analogous argument. Any questions?

I just don't understand how any American would support the silencing of even the other party in the United States. How do no Democrats see the ability to do that as a threat to everyone?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they would only have to change for Florida. You can't sue in florida state court if you're not a resident of Florida or didn't suffer a tort in Florida.

I really don't see how they can do that. They would have to check the profile of each and every person which I'm sure they don't have time for. So okay, they censor somebody's post in Florida. What would the state do about it?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb ****. You don't understand analogous arguments.

Let me explain it to you.

Just like defamation DOES NOT limit free speech, but provides for tort liability on said speech, this Florida law DOES NOT limit what Facebook can ban, but provides for tort liability if Facebook does not disclose and moderate consistently.

See? This is called an analogous argument. Any questions?

I just don't understand how any American would support the silencing of even the other party in the United States. How do no Democrats see the ability to do that as a threat to everyone?

Because most leftists are incapable of seeing foreseeable consequences.

 

[WEATHER53]

Here's what a conservative illiterate posted about this particular subject yesterday:

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

What makes the post so mind-numbingly obtuse is the fact that, when it comes to federal law, state lines are irrelevant.

But, social media is doing business in Florida because Florida consumers use social media. Social media will therefore be subject to Florida laws. Federal law is irrelevant here.

The "explicit words" of a constitution written in the 18th century needs to be interpreted in a 21st century world where living standards are so different but human beings and our natures are essentially the same as people from 250 years earlier. As an example, that means that a right to privacy today has to be interpreted based on the digital era we live in and not just an earlier era of hand-written correspondence.

Yes, but if something in the Constitution does not work well with the modern era, there's a way to fix it so that it does. It's call the amendment process.

Tell me, is it stupidity, or is it ignorance on your part that makes you think that a state can legally supersede a federal law?

It doesn't really matter since it's just one more example of conservatives willingness to ignore the constitution and embrace any unconstitutional idea to get what they want.

Federal law and dictates don’t mean shit for Covid. The buck has literally been passed all the way down to block captains

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Oh, yes. He used the OTHER defamation word. How can anyone be so totally wrong?


You ******* pettifogger.

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb ****. You don't understand analogous arguments.

Let me explain it to you.

Just like defamation DOES NOT limit free speech, but provides for tort liability on said speech, this Florida law DOES NOT limit what Facebook can ban, but provides for tort liability if Facebook does not disclose and moderate consistently.

See? This is called an analogous argument. Any questions?

He feels you response does not quell his feelings

That must be it.

Or....nah. He's a dumb ****. Let's be honest.

 

[WEATHER53]

Harping on irrelevant trivialities is FAUX's favorite tactic.

******* moron, how did you not understand it's not defamation in any terms?

What? Both Libel and Slander are forms of defamation.

And neither apply here. Banning a member for violating the terms of service is not defamation.

The analogy applies. Everyone may slander/libel/defame at will, but could be subject to tort liability.

No, they're not. There's no defamation for enforcing terms of service. That's like saying if I become a member at Mar-a-Lago, I can sue Trump for defamation and force him to keep me as a member should I violate the agreed to terms of service and not pay my renewal fees.

Oh, no wonder. You're a dumb ****. You don't understand analogous arguments.

Let me explain it to you.

Just like defamation DOES NOT limit free speech, but provides for tort liability on said speech, this Florida law DOES NOT limit what Facebook can ban, but provides for tort liability if Facebook does not disclose and moderate consistently.

See? This is called an analogous argument. Any questions?

I just don't understand how any American would support the silencing of even the other party in the United States. How do no Democrats see the ability to do that as a threat to everyone?

Because most leftists are incapable of seeing foreseeable consequences.

Ive always heard about about”think things through” but never “feel things through”

 

[Toro]

Awesome!

I'm going to sue USMB when I get banned!

Easiest $100k I've ever made.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the example that makes me support the Florida law more than anything else. SUE the **** out of these ass hats. Make them pay

You know what’s going to be cheaper than any of this? Facebook buying 25 acres in Florida, putting in a tilt a whirl and therefore exempting themselves from the law.

How would that exempt them from the law?

 

[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.

Quote Facebpok declaring themselves a common carrier....

More importantly, quote the government declaring Facebook a common carrier.

Facebook claims it's a common carrier, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

It is not a restriction of Facebooks “speech” to say that they cannot censure and remove the printed word due to the political affiliation

It sure is. Facebook is engaging in speech by publishing content. This bill limits their ability to decide what content to publish. That is limiting their speech.

Nope. they will be playing by the same rules as CNN and the NYT.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".

You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

Awesome!

I'm going to sue USMB when I get banned!

Easiest $100k I've ever made.

While I am still a mod, do you want to work out a deal?

You post something innocuous and I will ban you for it. Split the net winnings 60/40?

 

[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.

Quote Facebpok declaring themselves a common carrier....

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/charlotte-silver/billion-dollar-israeli-lawsuit-against-facebook-thrown-out​

​

In dismissing the case on 18 May, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis upheld Facebook’s argument that the company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says certain Internet services are not liable for content created by a third party.​

​

The immunity this law extends to Facebook is based on the idea that such Internet companies are not the publishers or speakers of the content under question, and therefore cannot be held liable for its alleged harm.​

 

[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.

Quote Facebpok declaring themselves a common carrier....

More importantly, quote the government declaring Facebook a common carrier.

Billion-dollar Israeli lawsuit against Facebook thrown out

Mossad-linked lawyers group to appeal New York judge's dismissal.

electronicintifada.net

​

​

In dismissing the case on 18 May, US District Judge Nicholas Garaufis upheld Facebook’s argument that the company was protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says certain Internet services are not liable for content created by a third party.​

​

The immunity this law extends to Facebook is based on the idea that such Internet companies are not the publishers or speakers of the content under question, and therefore cannot be held liable for its alleged harm.​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

That's bullshit. Facebook is NOT liable for the content posted by users. That's the whole point. They are not doing it to prevent liability. They are immune.

Except, now Florida law makes them disclose and moderate consistently. Poor Facebook.

 

[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.

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.

No, that's NOT the point, because Facebook doesn't currently face any liabilities associated with the content posted by its users. Basically, you're doing the same dishonest shit they're trying to: demanding that they get to act like publishers, while trying to cloak your bigotry in the mantle of "platform".

You have no business accusing anyone else of being a liar, given that you've never said a truthful word in all the time you've been spewing shit on this board. Oh, and the word "lie" is not defined as "saying things I don't like". Good to know that your knowledge of the English language is as extensive as your knowledge of the law.

Believe me profoundly when I say that anything that liberals don’t feel good about is to them a “lie” which they can’t factually counter so they need an impenetrable safe space where such free expression is prohibited

 

[bripat9643]

It is not a restriction of Facebooks “speech” to say that they cannot censure and remove the printed word due to the political affiliation

It sure is. Facebook is engaging in speech by publishing content. This bill limits their ability to decide what content to publish. That is limiting their speech.

If they are a publisher, they can be sued, just like any other publisher.