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

[SweetTea]

So, why can't a hotel ban Muslims.

After all, religion is a mere opinion/belief. You would let Facebook ban people for their opinions because it's facebook's private property but hotel owners must accommodate people with opinions they abhor, right?

Religion is protected. It’s not just an opinion, it’s a central part of people’s identity. It’s so fundamental to people we enshrined it in the constitution as specifically protected from government.

So now you guys are all for protecting the rights of religious folks or is it everyone EXCEPT Christians?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

True. Imagine if Republicans demanded that platforms keep up “pro-Jihad” speech.

You know, because y’all are so into protecting speech for everyone, not just yourself.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

And I am not advocating for platforms to do ANYTHING but what they want to do. But, you don't want to apply that principle universally.

THAT is the problem.

As much as I’d love for people to do anything they want, we live in a society that doesn’t allow it. We nearly tore ourselves apart when businesses could deny service to black people, hence PA laws.

You don't think we're on the verge of civil war because of the CLEARLY uneven behavior of Facebook?

THAT IS NO EXCUSE!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If politicians on the right are so batshit crazy, why not let them speak their peace and prove it?

They’re allowed to speak all they want. No one is stopping them. It’s just that you shouldn’t have the right to force others to help them.

Or give them a hotel room.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, why can't a hotel ban Muslims.

After all, religion is a mere opinion/belief. You would let Facebook ban people for their opinions because it's facebook's private property but hotel owners must accommodate people with opinions they abhor, right?

Religion is protected. It’s not just an opinion, it’s a central part of people’s identity. It’s so fundamental to people we enshrined it in the constitution as specifically protected from government.

So now you guys are all for protecting the rights of religious folks or is it everyone EXCEPT Christians?

The hypocrisy is thick, isn't it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

In you view, perhaps – but it does matter.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit brick and mortar businesses open to the general public from discriminating based on sexual orientation are perfectly lawful consistent with the Commerce Clause.

In US v. Heart of Atlanta Motel private property owners argued that public accommodations laws violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association – the Supreme Court held that that was not the case.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules that social media are subject to public accommodations laws where their right to freedom of association is not being violated, a baker refusing to accommodate a same-sex couple and FB refusing to accommodate racist hate speech are two completely different issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Users were banned from Facebook and Twitter for posting opposing opinions, not overwhelmingly universal opinions, like murder is bad.

It’s up to the platform to decide what opinions are bad enough to warrant removal.

Such as COVID misinformation.

...or believing that 77 virgins await a man who dies serving Allah.

I might add that there is a litany of what I would call misinformation on social media, particularly in favor of Democrats. Nobody seems to care. I don’t care either as long as they allow both sides to be heard.

They can be as biased and heavy handed as the want....as long as the same principle applies universally, which it doesn't because they don't see their own contradictions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

In you view, perhaps – but it does matter.

Public accommodations laws that prohibit brick and mortar businesses open to the general public from discriminating based on sexual orientation are perfectly lawful consistent with the Commerce Clause.

In US v. Heart of Atlanta Motel private property owners argued that public accommodations laws violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association – the Supreme Court held that that was not the case.

Until such time as the Supreme Court rules that social media are subject to public accommodations laws where their right to freedom of association is not being violated, a baker refusing to accommodate a same-sex couple and FB refusing to accommodate racist hate speech are two completely different issues, one having nothing to do with the other.

Yes, thank you. We are aware of the current state of American Jurisprudence. That is irrelevant when discussing what SHOULD be, rather than what is.

dblack's point still stands and it is a VERY good point.

 

[colfax_m]

You don't think we're on the verge of civil war because of the CLEARLY uneven behavior of Facebook?

THAT IS NO EXCUSE!!!

No. In fact, Facebook's decision to stop the spread of disinformation is probably hampering the efforts of people trying to tear the country apart.

Why do you think these idiots are fighting so hard to get their opinions on these platforms?

 

[colfax_m]

So now you guys are all for protecting the rights of religious folks or is it everyone EXCEPT Christians?

No, it's everyone. No one would be allowed to deny service to people on account of their Christian identity either.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You don't think we're on the verge of civil war because of the CLEARLY uneven behavior of Facebook?

THAT IS NO EXCUSE!!!

No. In fact, Facebook's decision to stop the spread of disinformation is probably hampering the efforts of people trying to tear the country apart.

Why do you think these idiots are fighting so hard to get their opinions on these platforms?

So, you are okay with ******* people out of their property rights if YOU think there is a good reason for doing so, but when Desantis et al decide to do it, you pitch a hissy fit?

 

[schmidlap]

Authoritarianism is rampant in the Trumped GOP.

In the dangling appendage state, centralized autocracy quashes local self-governance, and dictates to the private sector.

The mighty deep will scour the lowlands of the lowlifes,
and wash it fair and clean, leaving there many a shining pool
where the blue of heaven will shine, and sometimes a star.

​

 

[colfax_m]

Even if you believe these companies should be afforded the protections provided by Section 230, they are violating those by not acting in “good faith”, which is a requirement of the law. Legally, ”good faith” is a defined as a sincere belief to deal fairly with others. Being partisan, which they CLEARLY are, is, by definition, not acting in good faith. They do not apply the same standards across the political spectrum. If they are going to violate Section 230, the protection should be removed. That would be a death nail and they know it.

No, good faith is not a requirement of the law. 47 USC 230(c)(1) is what is used to protect social media platforms from liability and includes no requirement to act in good faith. 47 USC 230(c)(2) does include a good faith provision, although I would add, that if it did require them to act in good faith, they probably wouldn't have a hard time defending themselves on the content takedowns that I'm aware of. That section states they're allowed to take down content that is "otherwise objectionable" which is term that is so broad you could drive a truck through it. It would be easy to say that content falsely stating the election was stolen was "otherwise objectionable".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So now you guys are all for protecting the rights of religious folks or is it everyone EXCEPT Christians?

No, it's everyone. No one would be allowed to deny service to people on account of their Christian identity either.

But no one can decide to deny service on account of their Christian identity.

In other words, property rights are only protected when colfax believes there is a good reason. And property rights are shit on when colfax believes there is a good reason.

When principles can bend in such a fashion, they are not principles.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

although I would add, that if it did require them to act in good faith, they probably wouldn't have a hard time defending themselves on the content takedowns that I'm aware of.

You're not aware of some of the shit they have done. I can tell right now.

 

[colfax_m]

So, you are okay with ******* people out of their property rights if YOU think there is a good reason for doing so, but when Desantis et al decide to do it, you pitch a hissy fit?

Desantis is acting in his own interest, not that of the country's. It's a purely political move to benefit themselves and I find it totally craven.

Behavior is not and never should be considered protected behavior. Imagine not being able to kick someone out of a restaurant who was leaning over to other patrons and saying that they're all a bunch of Nazis who should die. It's idiotic.

 

[colfax_m]

You're not aware of some of the shit they have done. I can tell right now.

Go on. Give me one very specific example of what you think I should know about.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Desantis is acting in his own interest, not that of the country's. It's a purely political move to benefit themselves and I find it totally craven.

But, Desantis can do just like you and claim that he is protecting freedom of expression. You can't prove otherwise.

Behavior is not and never should be considered protected behavior. Imagine not being able to kick someone out of a restaurant who was leaning over to other patrons and saying that they're all a bunch of Nazis who should die. It's idiotic.

Again, I don't think you know the full story on what facebook has done because it has not affected you....YET. They have deemed the drop-dead,, proven truth "misinformation" on more than a thousand occasions. Hardly outrageous to state factual information on a platform designed to state information.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're not aware of some of the shit they have done. I can tell right now.

Go on. Give me one very specific example of what you think I should know about.

Here is ONE example.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvx5p5/facebook-tag-groups-men-misogyny-women-hate-speech

 

[colfax_m]

But, Desantis can do just like you and claim that he is protecting freedom of expression. You can't prove otherwise.

The bill is carving out protections for politicians, specifically. He’s protecting himself and his buddies. Government forcing private corporations to protect their own selfish interests used to be considered oppressive by Republicans.

Hardly outrageous to state factual information on a platform designed to state information.

Yeah, lots of people claim to have “facts” that just aren’t so. I’d have to see a specific example.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But, Desantis can do just like you and claim that he is protecting freedom of expression. You can't prove otherwise.

The bill is carving out protections for politicians, specifically. He’s protecting himself and his buddies. Government forcing private corporations to protect their own selfish interests used to be considered oppressive by Republicans.

Hardly outrageous to state factual information on a platform designed to state information.

Yeah, lots of people claim to have “facts” that just aren’t so. I’d have to see a specific example.

The bill punishes the platform for giving a substantial value to one candidate over another. It doesn't protect Desantis and his buddies specifically and would apply to any candidate, regardless of party.

People say what they believe to be true all the time. Again, that's hardly outrageous behavior. You've moved from the example of condemning outrageous Nazi behavior to being the arbiter of truth.