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

[protectionist]

It would never happen because Florida does not have jurisdiction over a company not in their state. A state can only make laws for their state, not for companies in another state.

FALSE! Florida law engages with out of state people every day. My own neighbor sued a company in Kentucky, and won the case here in Florida civil court. Another person I know here, sued a California company and won. Not only that, but the defendants had to come to Florida to contest the charges. All the more pressure on the social media companies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They can already be sued, dingleberry.

Not according to you, Colfax and the rest of the woke morons participating in this thread.

In the US, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

Exactly. And the FL handjob law doesn't change that.

This law makes surviving a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action much easier. If anything.

Because the law creates, from whole cloth, a "cause of action" that didn't exist before. So you can't just pretend this is about "allowing" people to sue them. It creates a new reason why they can sue them. It's setting them up for "punishment" because they banned Trump.

That's typically how causes of action are created.

Trump has NOTHING to do with this. You hate Trump so much you think anything is about his orange ass.

Other people have been arbitrarily banned, people I know, SOLELY for questioning the safety of vaccines or the effectiveness of mask wearing. NOTHING in the TOS forbade such conduct and it happened anyway. Others were banned for supporting violence but anyone praising the BLM riots got NOTHING. That is deceptive trade.

In many situations, social media is the only way people can communicate. But, for the very valuable eyes of users Facebook offers a free account. It is a contractural relationship. A 30-day suspension can come flying one's way without warning or consistency and their means of communicating with others is severely limited, if not shut off all together. Facebook has made certain that it has a monopoly on some means of communication between some users. Recourse?

I will leave it at that.

 

[meaner gene]

Make that every 20 years

haha dude those are obvious and well known to anyone with a 8th grade education

I never denied that the government grants new rights ie causes of action every generation or two. But they don't do so "all the time". Or we would hear about all of the lawsuits due to those changes congress makes "all the time"

As I said, I don't think they've passed even one in the last two congresses.

 

[protectionist]

Legally, the businesses are still based in other states. Twitter, Facebook and other sites are not in computers of Floridians. Floridians have their computers contact the computers in other states.

Doesn't matter where they're based. Floridians are using Twitter, Facebook etc here in Florida. As long as the alleged victim is in Florida, it's a Florida case.

 

[meaner gene]

Other people have been arbitrarily banned, people I know, SOLELY for questioning the safety of vaccines or the effectiveness of mask wearing. NOTHING in the TOS forbade such conduct and it happened anyway.

If by questioning you mean claiming vaccines are unsafe, and masks ineffective.
I doubt they "questioned" but instead posted debunked lies.

 

[WinterBorn]

Legally, the businesses are still based in other states. Twitter, Facebook and other sites are not in computers of Floridians. Floridians have their computers contact the computers in other states.

Doesn't matter where they're based. Floridians are using Twitter, Facebook etc here in Florida. As long as the alleged victim is in Florida, it's a Florida case.

If a case is brought, and it stands, it will just mean that the companies will start excluding Floridians from being able to access their sites.

 

[dblack]

Trump has NOTHING to do with this.

? Tell me you're kidding.

In many situations, social media is the only way people can communicate.

? Have you dipped into danielpalos' stash?

Facebook has made certain that it has a monopoly on some means of communication between some users.

This isn't even close to true.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Trump has NOTHING to do with this.

? Tell me you're kidding.

In many situations, social media is the only way people can communicate.

? Have you dipped into danielpalos' stash?

Facebook has made certain that it has a monopoly on some means of communication between some users.

This isn't even close to true.

Some people only know each other on facebook. Catch a ban for some undisclosed reason and that communication llink is GONE. Yeah, it is a monopoly for many purposes.

Given the type of business it is in the contractual relationship with users, they should have some sort of recourse. Like being able to sue these motherfuckers to at least give them the information so they can go find these other people a different way.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

FALSE! Florida law engages with out of state people every day. My own neighbor sued a company in Kentucky, and won the case here in Florida civil court. Another person I know here, sued a California company and won. Not only that, but the defendants had to come to Florida to contest the charges.

Apples and oranges. I don't know what the matters were, but I will bet my dollar to your dime they didn't sue these people because they violated a state law, unless the act was committed in that state.

So Florida decides they don't want Amazon to advertise or sell any Barack Obama books to their citizens. But Amazon can't do that. They have one site, not 50, one for each state. The only way to accommodate Florida is if they change their entire online catalog so nobody can buy Barack Obama books. Should one state have the power to do that? What about if like these social media outlets, they are international?

It's complete stupidity. Look.......if you disagree with Twitter or Facebook, cancel your membership. That's all. No court would even hear a case against FB or Twitter because states cannot write laws that control a company in another state.

 

[protectionist]

If a case is brought, and it stands, it will just mean that the companies will start excluding Floridians from being able to access their sites.

OK, but it will also mean that the social media companies will pay massive fines and/or lawsuit $$$$, as ordered by court judges. (see Post # 338)

If the companies want to appeal, they could bring it to the SCOTUS. I wouldn't bet on their chances.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree 100%. Since Twitter, Facebook, etc. are in computers of Floridians, day in and day out, Desantis has every bit a purpose to get a handle on this. With the internet, there is no such thing as 2,000 (or any) miles away.

It has nothing to do with it. FB and Twitter are not conducting business in Florida. That's all they have control over. And what computers do they have in Florida? I want to know their location.

 

[meaner gene]

Some people only know each other on facebook. Catch a ban for some undisclosed reason and that communication llink is GONE. Yeah, it is a monopoly for many purposes.

That reminds me of people who only know their friends phone numbers because they have them on their phone.
If you confiscate their phone (or it breaks, or gets lost) and their link to their friends is GONE too.

 

[protectionist]

Or the site adds a new rules to the TOS.

"Any person my be banned for the good of the site". Now the bannings would not be arbitrary.

Often people make statements pertaining to law, as if things were very solidified, which they do appear to be on the surface. Having owned my own business for 12 years, and been through a number of court cases, both as a defendant and a plaintiff, I can tell you that it is not uncommon for judges to ignore contractual verbage, and simply rule on their guts, how much they like or dislike each if the parties, or 100 other things.

I've even seen judges refuse to read the contract or listen to what one of the parties says about it. Just look at the election fraud cases. They didn't want politic in the courtroom so they never even looked at the evidence.

Quite surprising how things sometimes go down in court cases. Never something we can be sure about, and I am sure about that.

 

[struth]

Good luck imposing laws on companies in other states.

Companies (or individuals) can be held liable with respect to the laws of the state of the plaintiff.

It's highly doubtful Florida can infringe private companies' First Amendment rights in it's own state. It absolutely can't enforce it upon companies in other states. Did you learn nothing at all from Texas v. Pennsylvania 2020 or DOMA being shredded by the SCOTUS?

a state has jurisdiction over any business that does business in their state.

this law doesn’t infringe on their first amendment rights...they are free to make any statement they want

with that said, if the argument is that they are making statements by blocking post they disagree with, then they certainly will lose their 230 immunity

 

[dblack]

Some people only know each other on facebook. Catch a ban for some undisclosed reason and that communication llink is GONE. Yeah, it is a monopoly for many purposes.

Given the type of business it is in the contractual relationship with users, you should have some sort of recourse. Like being able to sue these motherfuckers to at least give them the information so they can go find these other people a different way.

It's not a monopoly, not even close. Monopolies can never really exist without laws propping them up (and sorry, 230 doesn't do that). And even if it was a kinda-sorta-almost monopoly, that's still no excuse to give government an actual monopoly over social media moderation. And please let's not go through the tiresome exercise of you denying that, and trying to claim that it's "merely" regulation, or tort, or whatever other bullshit excuses are floating around. This about establishing government authority over what moderation is "allowed", and what isn't, on social media. That's power politicians have lusted after since the internet began, and you're advocating giving it to them. I think that's a really bad idea.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I guess the question is whether or not one has legal relief.

I'd say no, the question is whether or not one puts up with the entitlement of a minority of political extremists. I say no, btw.

The American left opposes discrimination unless it's based on political beliefs and then they wholeheartedly SUPPORT banning everyone to a virtual, internet, gulag. Of course, political leftists have ALWAYS supported the use of concentration camps and gulags for their political opponents.

The Qult45 does this to themselves with their 'common sense' rhetoric. Rational people don't want to hear that shit. So much entitlement, so little power.

 

[protectionist]

It has nothing to do with it. FB and Twitter are not conducting business in Florida. That's all they have control over. And what computers do they have in Florida? I want to know their location.

Yes they are conducting business in Florida. I'm in Florida, and I can go to Twitter right this minute. What computers they have in Florida, doesn't matter. What matters is our computers with them, in our computers.

Judges will hear all this. Time will tell. If anyone wants to dismiss the Florida law or the federal one addressing Section 230, ( SAFE TECH ACT, limiting the scope of Section 230 immunity, have at it.

 

[meaner gene]

It would never happen because Florida does not have jurisdiction over a company not in their state. A state can only make laws for their state, not for companies in another state.

Not entirely true. A company is answerable to the courts of any state where they have a physical prescience. Such as if Ford has a dealership in California, they can be sued in California.

Since facebook has no physical presence in Florida, you're right that they have no enforceable jurisdiction.

 

[dblack]

It has nothing to do with it. FB and Twitter are not conducting business in Florida. That's all they have control over. And what computers do they have in Florida? I want to know their location.

Yes they are conducting business in Florida. I'm in Florida, and I can go to Twitter right this minute.

Right, you go to Twitter. You leave Florida (via a series of tubes called the internet) and travel to Twitter's website.

Judges will hear all this. Time will tell. If anyone wants to dismiss the Florida law or the federal one addressing Section 230, have at it.

Yep. And we have a pretty shitty Court. It could go your way. If it does, look for Democrats to make this federal law post haste. Like they did with Romneycare.

 

[protectionist]

Apples and oranges. I don't know what the matters were, but I will bet my dollar to your dime they didn't sue these people because they violated a state law, unless the act was committed in that state.

So Florida decides they don't want Amazon to advertise or sell any Barack Obama books to their citizens. But Amazon can't do that. They have one site, not 50, one for each state. The only way to accommodate Florida is if they change their entire online catalog so nobody can buy Barack Obama books. Should one state have the power to do that? What about if like these social media outlets, they are international?

It's complete stupidity. Look.......if you disagree with Twitter or Facebook, cancel your membership. That's all. No court would even hear a case against FB or Twitter because states cannot write laws that control a company in another state.

I notice you're not talking about the SAFE TECH ACT limiting Section 230 immunity. That's US law.