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

[protectionist]

Government, especially local governments, cannot dictate to a company that provides a worldwide service on how they must conduct their business. I'm very conservative, but this is too far for me to support. Nobody has to be on Facebook, Twitter, or any other social media. It's optional.

Even if this stands in court, all these outlets would need to do is block anybody who lists themselves from the state of Florida. Just refuse to let them create an account, and cancel accounts from anybody in that state.

It's happening in at least 5 states, with more set to join in, + federal legislation is still making its way through US Congress committees. Has an excellent chance to become law, with rare situation of Republicans and Democrats both in support.

 

[protectionist]

Bodyslam? LOL!!

The 1st amendment protects your freedom of speech from the gov't. It does not have any effect on what happens on private property.

But new laws are set to do just that.

 

[Coyote]

If I were Twitter I’d ban Desantes just for fun.

It's getting a lot bigger than Desantis and Florida. legislation is cooking up in the Senate with Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) et al in the Commerce Committee. Don't presume it's just a Republican proposal. Lots of Democrats have had their skirmishes with social media hotshots too.

Democrats call for Congress to rein in, break up Big Tech

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers are calling for Congress to rein in Big Tech, possibly forcing Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple to break up their businesses, while making it harder for them to acquire others and imposing new rules to safeguard competition.

apnews.com

Warner, Hirono, Klobuchar Announce the SAFE TECH Act to Reform Section 230

WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) announced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act to reform Section 230 and allow social media companies to be held accountable for...

www.warner.senate.gov

I think their reasons are different.

Republicans are whining about supposed discrimmination.

Dems, I think, are more concerned about things along the line of anti-trust.

I think we need to rethink the regulation of these tech giants.

 

[protectionist]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

FALSE! The restriction of freedom of speech is coming from Twitter, Facebook et al big techs, and in glarinkgly outrageous ways, such as deplatforming the POTUS, while allowing the leaders of China and Iran to speak.

 

[protectionist]

I think their reasons are different.

Republicans are whining about supposed discrimmination.

Dems, I think, are more concerned about things along the line of anti-trust.

I think we need to rethink the regulation of these tech giants.

Feb. 20, 2021 - Today U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) announced the Safeguarding Against Fraud, Exploitation, Threats, Extremism and Consumer Harms (SAFE TECH) Act to reform Section 230 and allow social media companies to be held accountable for enabling cyber-stalking, targeted harassment, and discrimination on their platforms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.

what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

And they are not. Social media is not just Facebook.

Unless now you are admitting that they are a complete monopoly?

Asked and answered.
Read the thread.

You can't call it a bill of attainder if the definition of social media is broad enough to include multiple parties or a class of commerce.

You're just being a butt hurt little shit because you know this is going to kill your little chicken-shit fiefdom. Shit your britches and cry.

 

[protectionist]

Facebook and Twitter are global companies. Florida is barely going to register.

Show the numbers from a valid source.

 

[protectionist]

So...on forums like this, posters can violate TOS if they live in Florida?

No, but they can sue if they are censored, while not violating TOS.

 

[bripat9643]

They put disclaimers on posts they don’t agree with. That is “ developing content” on other users posts.

True. And those disclaimers are treated as speech by the platforms for which they can be held liable.

No they aren't.

 

[colfax_m]

And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?

What do you think you’re suing them for?

For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?​

Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.

Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.

Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.

It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.

Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.

It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.

If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.

Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.

Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.

Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.

Good luck proving intent.

Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.

Unless the post says “and now you should stalk this person” it’s pretty hard.

 

[colfax_m]

No they aren't.

It’s absolutely amazing how basically every time you post it’s wrong. I mean, you’re like a broken clock that still manages to be wrong all day.

 

[colfax_m]

So you want freedom of speech restricted.

Restricting freedom of speech is exactly what this bill does.

FALSE! The restriction of freedom of speech is coming from Twitter, Facebook et al big techs, and in glarinkgly outrageous ways, such as deplatforming the POTUS, while allowing the leaders of China and Iran to speak.

That’s not a restriction of the freedom of speech. Speech which occurs on someone else’s property is not free.

 

[colfax_m]

And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?

What do you think you’re suing them for?

For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?​

Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.

Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.

Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.

Disclosure of private information without permission? Ummm, yeah. That is illegal, at least here in Texas.

You mean like when Trump told everyone Lindsey Graham’s phone number?

Yes.

Consider me deflected.

Intent to harm is a bit of a sticking point.

Well, what could possibly be the other intent? Of course Trump was wrong to give that out, if it was intended to be private.

I'm not one who kisses the ass of "dear leader" because he is allegedly on "my team."

Somebody ***** up I'll let them know. ANYBODY.

Great. So let’s arrest Trump then.
Intent doesn’t have to be harmful, but to have people engage in legally protected acts like mailing them a letter or protesting on the sidewalk.

 

[colfax_m]

They are so ******* pissed and I love it.

Abandoning ones principles just to anger others you hate is basically what’s wrong with the Republican Party.

You can’t govern by owning the libs.

 

[protectionist]

No, you have to be a politician running for office. As far as I can tell, Trump is the only politician I'm Florida who's been banned from Twitter and Facebook. Meaning DeSantis passed a law for the benefit of just one Floridian in a state with a population exceeding 22 million. I hope this stunt, which will never raise a penny in fines, bites him next year.

Just curious. Do you have the specific passage in the law that says "you have to be a politician running for office". If so, please post it.

 

[colfax_m]

And it says in the constitution that you can't sue big tech?

What do you think you’re suing them for?

For Monetary Damages, wtf, didn't you read the thread title?​

Monetary damages caused by what? You guys don’t even know.

Facebook allowing users on their platform to Dox other users for one thing.

Doxxing isn’t very nice, but it hardly incurs legal liability.

It does when Facebook allows groups that engage in this to do it on their platform and knowingly allows them to go after small business owners with the intent to hurt their businesses.

Nope. Doxxing is constitutionally protected speech.

It’s against their site rules... but they allow it for “ certain” political groups.

If you say so. Still would be unconstitutional to sue because of it.

Stalking is a crime. Facebooks user rules say you may not perpetrate illegal acts on their platform. Therefore since they allow it. They are breaking a users terms of service. And can be sued.

Doxxing and stalking are not the same thing. I don’t think Facebook can sue Facebook for breaking Facebook’s terms of service.

Doxing is punishing you personal information online with the intent to get fellow users to stalk and harass another user. So...yes it is.

Good luck proving intent.

Wouldn’t be that hard...just save the posts.

At this point, these fools are just hammering away at the keys because they are so ******* pissed off that their free speech work-around is getting fucked over and Facebook is gonna have to start being legit or get sued. They are so ******* pissed and I love it. I hope they all shit they're ******* pants.

Exactly. They know what Facebook,Twitter and YouTube do is against 230 protections and they dont care because it benefits their ideology. They couldn’t care less about free speech or the “ constitution”. They only care that these companies are going to face consequences for free speech violations against conservatives.

Again, a private company is not subject to the first amendment freedom of speech. Second, section 230 has zero to do with this law.

 

[bripat9643]

No they aren't.

It’s absolutely amazing how basically every time you post it’s wrong. I mean, you’re like a broken clock that still manages to be wrong all day.

You mean I'm right.

 

[struth]

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.

Democrats running around screaming free markets! Free markets! Just unbelievable. Literally, as if they care about free markets.

They are just cheering because it's working, Republicans are being silenced.

And dblack doesn't see a problem

it’s not even about free markets. Free markets welcome the exchange of ideas, not censorship.

with that said, facebook is free in a free society to publish the content they want...with that said they should therefore be treated the same as everyone else in that business

Exchange of ideas like football players kneeling during the National Anthem? How did the right like that exchange of ideas?

I think some folks didn't like it....what's your point? I am not seeing the connection here. Facebook is free to have requirements of their employees as well. Facebook employees can sue Facebook....just like Kap was free to sue the NFL.

what we however is talking about something different all together. We are talking about consumers being able to sue Facebook. Just like consumers are free to sue the New Yorker, or NY Times....why do you continue to think that Facebook should be immune, be treated differently and get better protections?

you can sue anybody for anything.
You can sue FB.
HOWEVER
Passing a law to create a cause of action where none exists for the purpose of damaging specific entities is unconstitutional.
Article 1 Section 9 "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

sorry no facebook and tweeter are protected under federal law from liability

Govt can make laws creating a cause of action

this isn’t a bill or attained or ex post facto law. 1) it’s not criminal 2) nobody is saying they are guilty of anything

Government CANNOT make laws intended to harm individuals.
It's that Constitution you guys love to ignore.

How is allowing Facebook to be sued for cause "making a law intended to harm individuals?"

The "cause" doesn't exist. Only exists because a law was created for the express purpose of creating a cause SO FB could be sued and remember..."Corporations are people my friend."

Yes. That's generally how causes of action come about, unless they already existed at common law.

But those laws cannot be directed at specific individuals.
Article 1, Section 9.

hahaa it’s not a bill or attainer because it’s not convicting anyone of a crime

 

[bripat9643]

They are so ******* pissed and I love it.

Abandoning ones principles just to anger others you hate is basically what’s wrong with the Republican Party.

You can’t govern by owning the libs.

Dims have no principles. The never have had any.

 

[protectionist]

That’s not a restriction of the freedom of speech. Speech which occurs on someone else’s property is not free.

Of course it is a restriction of freedom of speech. It is outright stopping speech.