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

[Uncensored2008]

If social media doesn't fit the definition of a public forum, then it isn't protected by 230 and can be sued for the bullshit slander and libel they publish non-stop.

Utter nonsense. Section 230 doesn’t say anything about the website being a “public forum”. The term isn’t used let alone defined. Section 230 applies to any website where users submit content.

Your argument doesn’t have a factual basis.

You ******* retard, it was written in 1934, they had no idea what a "website" would be, They protected "public access" so that radio and emerging television would not be liable for pubic forums hosted on their respective mediums.

 

[colfax_m]

Wow, the Congress realize that the internet was different and put in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934....

You shouldn’t be so nasty, especially when you are demonstrating your lack of knowledge.

Section 230 was part of the Communications Decency Act which was passed in 1996. It amended the Communications Act of 1934.

Section 230 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[colfax_m]

If social media doesn't fit the definition of a public forum, then it isn't protected by 230 and can be sued for the bullshit slander and libel they publish non-stop.

Utter nonsense. Section 230 doesn’t say anything about the website being a “public forum”. The term isn’t used let alone defined. Section 230 applies to any website where users submit content.

Your argument doesn’t have a factual basis.

You ******* retard, it was written in 1934, they had no idea what a "website" would be, They protected "public access" so that radio and emerging television would not be liable for pubic forums hosted on their respective mediums.

Have you even read section 230?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm not complaining, I'm offering friendly advice.

Everyone makes spelling errors, but you make more than most, Chang.

There is a phrase among we Americans; "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

 

[Uncensored2008]

Have you even read section 230?

Fucktard, you don't even know what year it's from.

Ooze back into your sewer now, you've humiliated yourself enough for one evening.

 

[colfax_m]

Fucktard, you don't even know what year it's from.

You didn’t answer the question as to whether you’ve read section 230.

Do you think this was written in 1934?
“(1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer serviceshall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[dblack]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."

Sometimes differences really are different.

It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.

No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.

It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.

 

[colfax_m]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."

Sometimes differences really are different.

It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.

No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.

It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.

The behavior is inextricable from the identity. Gay people get gay married. Non-gay people do not. There’s no difference between discriminating against the identity and the behavior.

Like saying you don’t discriminate against Jewish people, but you do discriminate against people wearing yarmulkes.

 

[dblack]

But it is the exact same argument. You've all just switched sides.

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Social media kicks people off for behavior. Service is offered, but revoked when that service is abused.

These are totally difference causes of action.

Yeah. I hear ya. "It's different when we do it."

Sometimes differences really are different.

It’s not always easy to tell them apart, but if you think about it for five seconds it’s apparent.

No one would care if the baker refused to bake the cake for the couple because they were verbally abusive but everyone is up in arms because Trump is kicked off Twitter after acting like an asshole for years.

It doesn't really matter in my view. But for the sake of clarity, it was, in fact, the behavior that the baker found offensive. He didn't approve of a man marrying another man. It had nothing to do with "who" they were. It's what they were planning he wanted no part of.

The behavior is inextricable from the identity. Gay people get gay married. Non-gay people do not. There’s no difference between discriminating against the identity and the behavior. Like saying you don’t discriminate against Jewish people, but you do discriminate against people wearing yarmulkes.

Of course.

Like I said, I don't think it matters anyway. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.

And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.

 

[dblack]

Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.

And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.

It's the only legitimate option for a free society

 

[colfax_m]

Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.

And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.

It's the only legitimate option for a free society

We tried it. It nearly tore the country apart.

 

[WEATHER53]

Many many liberals pulled off their disguises today by revealing that they feel censorship of opposing views is good and warranted and banishment of those who hold those beliefs or experiences is equally permissible and justified

 

[WEATHER53]

I want to thank the number of people here who have identified they dont believe in free speech when it does not match the whim of their feelings
That label should stick with you for a Long Time

It doesn’t appear that you know what Free Speech is.

It has now been confirmed that you do know what prohibition of free speech is and In fact endorse it.

 

[dblack]

Many many liberals pulled off their disguises today by revealing that they feel censorship of opposing views is good and warranted and banishment of those who hold those beliefs or experiences is equally permissible and justified

I don't know why you're so convinced that liberals are your enemies. Traditionally, they're as excited as you are about government controlling businesses.

Give it a year or so. When "Big Tech" turns against them, when conservatives build their own social media sites, you'll see - liberals will be right there with you, eager to use the government to "rein in" companies that piss them off.

 

[colfax_m]

Posting on social media is a privilege, not a right.

(to borrow a phrase)

 

[WEATHER53]

Posting on social media is a privilege, not a right.

(to borrow a phrase)

Privileges are earned
You dont have to earn or do anything; you just sign up .They Ask you to join. Then if they don’t like Trump or that you like Trump then you get silenced.
Even worse, you think that’s Ok

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I disagree it's the exact same argument.

The baker refuses to bake the cake because of the person's identity. Service is refused solely because who they are.

Who they are is no different than their opinions. People are their opinions.

IT'S THE SAME ******* THING!!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah, hair-splitting aside, I don't think it matters. No one should be forced to accommodate someone else against their will, regardless of their reason for refusing.

And I sincerely wish we lived in a country where that was a legitimate option.

So, quit bitching about Desantis, because it's no different.

Either we have principles or we don't. Pick one.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Many many liberals pulled off their disguises today by revealing that they feel censorship of opposing views is good and warranted and banishment of those who hold those beliefs or experiences is equally permissible and justified

I don't know why you're so convinced that liberals are your enemies. Traditionally, they're as excited as you are about government controlling businesses.

Give it a year or so. When "Big Tech" turns against them, when conservatives build their own social media sites, you'll see - liberals will be right there with you, eager to use the government to "rein in" companies that piss them off.

I wouldn't call them liberals. They are FAR from liberal. I am liberal.

And I agree.

But, if we're gonna shit on businesses for giving a benefit to one candidate, in violation of election finance laws, then there is no reason why Desantis' law should not apply.