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

[struth]

Let's cut the bullshit. No one expects this law to stand. It's just DeSantis giving Trump a handjob.

I see no reason why it shouldn't stand. Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...so this really has nothing to do with Trump, other then in your weird mind

 

[Faun]

Let's cut the bullshit. No one expects this law to stand. It's just DeSantis giving Trump a handjob.

I see no reason why it shouldn't stand. Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...so this really has nothing to do with Trump, other then in your weird mind

How come you won't answer?

How much does it cost to join and post on Facebook?

 

[meaner gene]

Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...

What case would that be? How did the supreme court get it before going through all the lower courts?

 

[colfax_m]

I see no reason why it shouldn't stand. Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...so this really has nothing to do with Trump, other then in your weird mind

Can you link to this case? I haven’t heard of it.

 

[dblack]

Let's cut the bullshit. No one expects this law to stand. It's just DeSantis giving Trump a handjob.

I see no reason why it shouldn't stand. Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...so this really has nothing to do with Trump, other then in your weird mind

OK

 

[meaner gene]

Can you link to this case? I haven’t heard of it.

I haven't heard of it either. And the news normally reports on all federal cases involving Trump.

 

[struth]

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Federal law is saying facebook is not a common carrier under Sec 200

Then it can be sued, moron

Not under section 230.

Section 230 only protects them from being treated as a publisher of a third party's contend.

When Facebook, et al, goes and starts editing or censoring content then they very well can be considered a publisher.
Fari Housing Council of San Fernado Valley v Roommates.com...highlighted the immunity is not absolute.

​

 

[struth]

I see no reason why it shouldn't stand. Trump already has a case pending, that SCOTUS has agreed to hear...so this really has nothing to do with Trump, other then in your weird mind

Can you link to this case? I haven’t heard of it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf

You can read the lengthy opinion granting review....and see where the Court is headed....in terms of viewing them as Common Carriers, as well as anti-trust concerns

 

[meaner gene]

Section 230 only protects them from being treated as a publisher of a third party's contend.

Which doesn't define them as a common carrier. So section 230 can't be used to either form the basis for, or support the facebook status for exposure as a common carrier under another section.

 

[d0gbreath]

What's your point, asshole?

You asshole, me Tarzan.

 

[struth]

Section 230 only protects them from being treated as a publisher of a third party's contend.

Which doesn't define them as a common carrier. So section 230 can't be used to either form the basis for, or support the facebook status for exposure as a common carrier under another section.

I didn't say it did...on the Federal level....although that appears to be the way that many are viewing to make federal legislation. I personally believe that is how they should be...and the Court seems to be hinting at that as well.

With that said, we were discussing how certain industries are regulated, and how this is nothing new.

 

[meaner gene]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf

You can read the lengthy opinion granting review....and see where the Court is headed....in terms of viewing them as Common Carriers, as well as anti-trust concerns

That's the USSC schedule, including the decision in the case where Trump tried to block people from viewing his tweets. Clarence Thomas ruled that Trump as a government entity using that account for public pronouncements, could not block or unsubscribe people.

 

[struth]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf

You can read the lengthy opinion granting review....and see where the Court is headed....in terms of viewing them as Common Carriers, as well as anti-trust concerns

That's the USSC schedule, including the decision in the case where Trump tried to block people from viewing his tweets. Clarence Thomas ruled that Trump as a government entity using that account for public pronouncements, could not block or unsubscribe people.

sigh...it's the Order granting the petitition for Cert from the lower Court. They haven't heard the case yet, just granted cert....the opinion actually does a great job of highlighting the irony in the lower court ruling that you highlighted....that it was "public space" but controlled by a private entity that can simply ban people...like Trump.

Geez...obviously you didn't read it

 

[meaner gene]

sigh...it's the Order granting the petitition for Cert from the lower Court. They haven't heard the case yet, just granted cert....the opinion actually does a great job of highlighting the irony in the lower court ruling that you highlighted....that it was "public space" but controlled by a private entity that can simply ban people...like Trump.

Geez...obviously you didn't read it

It's not granting Cert to the USSC. It's from the USSC granting Cert to the 2nd circuit court of appeals, with an order for them to close the case.

Citation:

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

Because of the change in Presidential administration, the
Court correctly vacates the Second Circuit’s decision

 

[struth]

sigh...it's the Order granting the petitition for Cert from the lower Court. They haven't heard the case yet, just granted cert....the opinion actually does a great job of highlighting the irony in the lower court ruling that you highlighted....that it was "public space" but controlled by a private entity that can simply ban people...like Trump.

Geez...obviously you didn't read it

It's not granting Cert to the USSC. It's from the USSC granting Cert to the 2nd circuit court of appeals, with an order for them to close the case.

Citation:

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.

It granted cert, and remanded to the lower court...the judgment against Trump was vacated.

But the point was the opinion issued and where the Court is heading in the future when these cases come up...not looking good for Facebook and the DNC's propaganda ministry

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Federal law is saying facebook is not a common carrier under Sec 200

Then it can be sued, moron

Not under section 230.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.multipro.com%2Fbstopham%2FYou%2520So%2520Stupid.gif&f=1&nofb=1

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Federal law is saying facebook is not a common carrier under Sec 200

Then it can be sued, moron

Not under section 230.

Conservatives want to sue FB because FB exercised its First Amendment right to freedom of association and freedom of the press to edit its content as it sees fit.

 

[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

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

The rules arent being equally applied. That is the issue and now they will be sued for it.

Proving that will be exceedingly difficult.

We shall see

 

[struth]

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Federal law is saying facebook is not a common carrier under Sec 200

Then it can be sued, moron

Not under section 230.

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.multipro.com%2Fbstopham%2FYou%2520So%2520Stupid.gif&f=1&nofb=1

So you're saying that Facebook is not a common carrier?

Federal law is saying facebook is not a common carrier under Sec 200

Then it can be sued, moron

Not under section 230.

Conservatives want to sue FB because FB exercised its First Amendment right to freedom of association and freedom of the press to edit its content as it sees fit.

Facebook is the Press now? You do realize the Press can be sued right? The NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, Fox etc....

If they can be sued why can't Facebook?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

​

Trump sycophant DeSantis signed a bill into ‘law’ that’s clearly a violation of the First Amendment and is further confirmation of the authoritarian right’s contempt for the Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

When you signed on to this forum, you agreed to abide by the rules of the forum.

If you are held accountable for breaking the rules, there is nothing you can sue over.

From your linked article:
"The law requires companies to detail how they reach conclusions about content moderation and stick to those standards consistently, DeSantis said during a press conference on Monday."

As long as the moderators follow the rules and stick to the standards, you have no complaint. This is not a free speech issue. The 1st amendment is there to prevent the gov't from silencing you. It does not apply to private property. It also does not apply when you have agreed to follow the rules set forth by the forums.

Time and litigation will tell. In the meantime, the forums are in the hot seat. At $100K per lawsuit, I would tread lightly if I were them.

If you agree to abide by the set rules, and then break the rules, there is nothing to litigate.

The rules arent being equally applied. That is the issue and now they will be sued for it.

Proving that will be exceedingly difficult.

We shall see

Only if someone tries to sue. I think most lawyers would see the problems with pursuing such a lawsuit.