Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Sign Bill Banning Social Media ‘Deplatforming’

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some of these people will never understand that, it's like debating with a spoon.

True.

Or as a consequence of their dishonesty, conservatives still propagate the lie that private social media are ‘violating’ free speech, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[progressive hunter]

Some of these people will never understand that, it's like debating with a spoon.

True.

Or as a consequence of their dishonesty, conservatives still propagate the lie that private social media are ‘violating’ free speech, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

since youre once again confusing the 1st A with free speech,,
the premise of your comment is a lie,,

 

[Dadoalex]

So you go from the first claiming it's not for corporations and get shot in one butt cheek and now you're trying for the other?

OK
When you sign up for a membership you agree to a ToS.
The ToS is politically neutral.
when you violate the ToS the company has every right to remove your content and even cancel your account.
they didn't cancel your account because of your race, nor because of your religion, or your politics.

THEY CANCELLED YOUR ACCONT BECAUSE YOU VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT TO WHICH YOU AGREED.

Now, please describe how this fits into any remote discussion of "equal protection."

We'll be waiting for your Rudy-Like mastering of the law.

Simple, because when the tech fascists apply their TOS they do so based on race and political affiliation.

Twitter is not a public access platform, they are a publisher, a mouth piece of the democrat part and are liable for ALL the content they publish.

REALLY?
Other than Trump and his sycophants whining do you have, Oh, I dunno, a statement from one of these platforms confirming your allegation?
No?
Well then we'll just put this crap right where it belongs

 

[rightwinger]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Facebook owns the site
They make the rules

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned
Just like USMB

 

[progressive hunter]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Facebook owns the site
They make the rules

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned
Just like USMB

they are applying their rules equally,, remove the protections from 230 and all will be fine,,

 

[mamooth]

Why would anyone think that section 230 -- a liability shield that applies to the entire internet -- is really a Stalinist mandate allowing the government to force people to broadcast whatever Theparty demands? That makes no sense. It's just a liability shield.

 

[progressive hunter]

Why would anyone think that section 230 -- a liability shield that applies to the entire internet -- is really a Stalinist mandate allowing the government to force people to broadcast whatever Theparty demands? That makes no sense. It's just a liability shield.

it makes no sense because no body has made that argument,,

 

[mamooth]

Then why are you raving about section 230? What do you think it is?

 

[progressive hunter]

Then why are you raving about section 230? What do you think it is?

maybe you should follow the discussion instead of making dumbass comments that have nothing to do with it??

because they have 230 protections they shouldnt be banning speech from one side with the excuse of what 230 protects them from,,

 

[mamooth]

So I say it's just a liability shield.

You scream I'm wrong.

Then you confirm it's just a liability shield.

yeah.

 

[progressive hunter]

So I say it's just a liability shield.

You scream I'm wrong.

Then you confirm it's just a liability shield.

yeah.

man you are dense,,,

230 is not what gives the government authority to force anyone to do anything,,

 

[Dadoalex]

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Mitt Romney "Corporations are people my friend"

Not that it makes your comment less nonsensical.
The 1st is meant for the government.
Does not say what people or corporations or businesses can or cannot do.
Only the government

You've a complete failure to understand either the meaning or intent of the 1st.

There's not a conservative alive that has even the vaguest ideas what the constitution is for or what it's about. I was told on another forum, by a person who claimed to be a lawyer, that the preamble didn't matter because it isn't really part of the document.

The preamble is not legally enforceable any more than the ideas in the Declaration are legally enforceable.

BUT

They set a moral tone for the direction of this country meaning they are every bit as important as the rest of the documents
BECAUSE
Without them we are not the USA.

The preamble is what the rest of the document is all about.

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Mitt Romney "Corporations are people my friend"

Not that it makes your comment less nonsensical.
The 1st is meant for the government.
Does not say what people or corporations or businesses can or cannot do.
Only the government

You've a complete failure to understand either the meaning or intent of the 1st.

There's not a conservative alive that has even the vaguest ideas what the constitution is for or what it's about. I was told on another forum, by a person who claimed to be a lawyer, that the preamble didn't matter because it isn't really part of the document.

The Constitution does not say socialism, fascism, capitalism, communism. None of it. It does say freedom and liberty and tells us about positive real money. Not the debt derived fiat currency we have today. So you must include that. But you can't. Because all of the agendas you have will fall like dominoes.

We have a more solid currency than our founders ever envisioned

Between 1790 and 1936 the US had easily a dozen depressions and dozens of regional recessions generally traceable to liquidity issues.
So long as the Fed acts to keep the lid on hyper-inflation the currency along with the euro will remain the model of currency stability.
And isn't it great the Fed is (sort of) politically independent.

youre forgetting they didnt have huge debt like we have now,,

the feds are eating us up with allowing that debt and getting filthy rich in the process,,

Sigh....

So let's go gold.
First, do we float or set a value? If we float prices will be generally competitive but subject to massive bouts of inflation and deflation. Set a value and imports could become prohibitively expensive.
Issue currency backed by gold or do business with actual gold? In either case, what do you do about hoarding?

We know all the answers to all the questions surrounding "going gold" because, to borrow a phrase, we've been there before.
Between 1790 and 1936 this country suffered literally dozens of recessions and depressions traceable to a lack of liquidity in the markets. The government's inability to print more money and remove money from the market meant there were no mechanisms to slow these bouts of depression and hyperinflation. Since 1936 the US has suffered zero depressions and, outside of 08/09 generally good economic growth thanks in good part to the Fed.

The ideas you're pushing are literally failed 19th century economic thought.

how about we start by not taking on new debt we can never pay off??

I think is a little disrespectful to future generations dont you??

REALLY?
After Trump raised the debt by over 35% in less than 4 years?

The hypocrisy is just stunning! The dishonesty is, of course, expected.

dont worry your little heart,, biden will surpass him long before 4 yrs,,

and your comment has nothing to do with the context of my comment,,

but thanks for stopping by and showing us what a troll you are,,

You're right about the comment. my mistake. You see folks, when you err, acknowledge the error and move on.

As for the debt.
As has been demonstrated over the last 4 years, the debt does not matter.
As long as we can maintain economic growth that exceed debt expansion.
Which is why the ability to manage the money supply is critical.
Back BR (Before Reagan) when Republicans took the debt and deficits seriously
The Fed was much less involved in managing the economy.
Once Reagan blew up the deficit and debt such management became a necessity
to fight both inflation and recessions.

You've made no response to my queries on the difficulty of implementing a "gold plan"
Nor have you responded to the need to manage the economy under a "gold plan."

Now, since we've established that your ideas would crash the global economy, result in starvation for for hundreds of millions of people, and return to the economics of the 19th century when boom-bust-hyper inflation-hyper-deflation ruled the markets is there anything else to discuss here?

 

[progressive hunter]

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Mitt Romney "Corporations are people my friend"

Not that it makes your comment less nonsensical.
The 1st is meant for the government.
Does not say what people or corporations or businesses can or cannot do.
Only the government

You've a complete failure to understand either the meaning or intent of the 1st.

There's not a conservative alive that has even the vaguest ideas what the constitution is for or what it's about. I was told on another forum, by a person who claimed to be a lawyer, that the preamble didn't matter because it isn't really part of the document.

The preamble is not legally enforceable any more than the ideas in the Declaration are legally enforceable.

BUT

They set a moral tone for the direction of this country meaning they are every bit as important as the rest of the documents
BECAUSE
Without them we are not the USA.

The preamble is what the rest of the document is all about.

republicans strike again. Now they are taking first amendment rights from social media.

They are regulating the internet. And violating the first amendment to do it. They are also violating section 230 of the communications decency act.

What happened to their screaming that business owners have the right to decide who they serve or do business with? That was a lie too.

They are showing that their hate for regulations was all a lie. They love regulating business just not in a responsible way.

Their beliefs are of convenience not real beliefs.

Ban Trump? Not so fast. Florida is about to pass a law to stop Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is likely to sign into law a bill that would stop Facebook, Twitter and YouTube from censoring politicians such as Donald Trump.

www.usatoday.com

I'm thinking youre a little confused how the 1st A works,,,

Nope. You are.

and yet you failed to explain why I'm wrong,,

the 1st is meant for the people not companies,,

Mitt Romney "Corporations are people my friend"

Not that it makes your comment less nonsensical.
The 1st is meant for the government.
Does not say what people or corporations or businesses can or cannot do.
Only the government

You've a complete failure to understand either the meaning or intent of the 1st.

There's not a conservative alive that has even the vaguest ideas what the constitution is for or what it's about. I was told on another forum, by a person who claimed to be a lawyer, that the preamble didn't matter because it isn't really part of the document.

The Constitution does not say socialism, fascism, capitalism, communism. None of it. It does say freedom and liberty and tells us about positive real money. Not the debt derived fiat currency we have today. So you must include that. But you can't. Because all of the agendas you have will fall like dominoes.

We have a more solid currency than our founders ever envisioned

Between 1790 and 1936 the US had easily a dozen depressions and dozens of regional recessions generally traceable to liquidity issues.
So long as the Fed acts to keep the lid on hyper-inflation the currency along with the euro will remain the model of currency stability.
And isn't it great the Fed is (sort of) politically independent.

youre forgetting they didnt have huge debt like we have now,,

the feds are eating us up with allowing that debt and getting filthy rich in the process,,

Sigh....

So let's go gold.
First, do we float or set a value? If we float prices will be generally competitive but subject to massive bouts of inflation and deflation. Set a value and imports could become prohibitively expensive.
Issue currency backed by gold or do business with actual gold? In either case, what do you do about hoarding?

We know all the answers to all the questions surrounding "going gold" because, to borrow a phrase, we've been there before.
Between 1790 and 1936 this country suffered literally dozens of recessions and depressions traceable to a lack of liquidity in the markets. The government's inability to print more money and remove money from the market meant there were no mechanisms to slow these bouts of depression and hyperinflation. Since 1936 the US has suffered zero depressions and, outside of 08/09 generally good economic growth thanks in good part to the Fed.

The ideas you're pushing are literally failed 19th century economic thought.

how about we start by not taking on new debt we can never pay off??

I think is a little disrespectful to future generations dont you??

REALLY?
After Trump raised the debt by over 35% in less than 4 years?

The hypocrisy is just stunning! The dishonesty is, of course, expected.

dont worry your little heart,, biden will surpass him long before 4 yrs,,

and your comment has nothing to do with the context of my comment,,

but thanks for stopping by and showing us what a troll you are,,

You're right about the comment. my mistake. You see folks, when you err, acknowledge the error and move on.

As for the debt.
As has been demonstrated over the last 4 years, the debt does not matter.
As long as we can maintain economic growth that exceed debt expansion.
Which is why the ability to manage the money supply is critical.
Back BR (Before Reagan) when Republicans took the debt and deficits seriously
The Fed was much less involved in managing the economy.
Once Reagan blew up the deficit and debt such management became a necessity
to fight both inflation and recessions.

You've made no response to my queries on the difficulty of implementing a "gold plan"
Nor have you responded to the need to manage the economy under a "gold plan."

Now, since we've established that your ideas would crash the global economy, result in starvation for for hundreds of millions of people, and return to the economics of the 19th century when boom-bust-hyper inflation-hyper-deflation ruled the markets is there anything else to discuss here?

at this point thanks to dems and repubes because of the debt a gold standard is not possible,,,

now your turn,,

how is it moral and just to put this and more debt on future generations??

 

[dblack]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Facebook owns the site
They make the rules

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned
Just like USMB

they are applying their rules equally,, remove the protections from 230 and all will be fine,,

I agree. 230 is just one of those "convenience" laws that's intended to avoid a bunch of needless lawsuits. Without it, courts would end up setting the same precedent. And, most importantly, if we repealed the law, statists could no longer use it as an excuse to bully internet companies.

 

[colfax_m]

The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

If you invite someone in, that does not remove your right to ask them to leave when you so choose.

 

[danielpalos]

Why are right wingers such hypocrites?

 

[progressive hunter]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Facebook owns the site
They make the rules

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned
Just like USMB

they are applying their rules equally,, remove the protections from 230 and all will be fine,,

I agree. 230 is just one of those "convenience" laws that's intended to avoid a bunch of needless lawsuits. Without it, courts would end up setting the same precedent. And, most importantly, if we repealed the law, statists could no longer use it as an excuse to bully internet companies.

no one is using it to bully anyone,,

and theres nothing convenient about it,, its a protection for a site owner so that they cant be sued for outside commenters,, nothing else,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

If you invite someone in, that does not remove your right to ask them to leave when you so choose.

no one is invited in,, its an open forum for any that wish to come,,,

 

[dblack]

The freedom is not the freedom of Facebook to do what they want. The freedom is for the people they invite in to share their experiences and opinions without censorship deletions.

Facebook owns the site
They make the rules

If you can’t follow the rules, you get banned
Just like USMB

they are applying their rules equally,, remove the protections from 230 and all will be fine,,

I agree. 230 is just one of those "convenience" laws that's intended to avoid a bunch of needless lawsuits. Without it, courts would end up setting the same precedent. And, most importantly, if we repealed the law, statists could no longer use it as an excuse to bully internet companies.

no one is using it to bully anyone,

Of course they are. That's the topic of the thread.

and theres nothing convenient about it,, its a protection for a site owner so that they cant be sued for outside commenters,, nothing else,,

It's a convenience to the courts, so they have clear guidance. But it's unnecessary. Ultimately, courts would end up setting the same precedent that the law dictates, because it makes sense.

 

[Rambunctious]

Boooooooyaaaaaaaaa!!! F U big tech....who needs ya...go away....