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

[Hutch Starskey]

So to you, freedom of speech means you can screech your lies from my front porch.

If you designate your front porch as a public medium open all the way the tech fascists have.

No worries though, I'm not flying to China.

If you designate your front porch as a public medium open all the way the tech fascists have

Open only when in accordance with their terms of service that the user agreed to upon registering.

Try just being a good faith, honest actor for a change.

 

[progressive hunter]

It’s quite important because lack of context or exculpatory information being withheld is part of OKeefe’s MO.

Then the Baghdad Bob's of the Reich propaganda corps are free to provide the rest of the story. Which oddly it never does.

Virtually ALL of your posts lack context and exculpatory evidence. You present your side, that's how adults operate.

thats his alisnky word games at work,, he gives just enough to support his narrative and leaves out the parts that disprove it,,

 

[colfax_m]

Virtually ALL of your posts lack context and exculpatory evidence. You present your side, that's how adults operate.

It's been pretty entertaining seeing you call me viscous names when you think I'm in error...

...only to demonstrate your absolute ignorance on the very basics of the issue.

Like when you claimed that section 230 was written in 1934 despite the fact that it literally is specifying the internet. Or when you claimed Citizen's United wasn't about corporations despite that being explicitly mentioned in the decision.

You never reply to those comments. You just keep moving on acting like a jerk again and again. Never acknowledging your fundamental mistakes.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I never complained that gays aren’t being baked cakes. The complaint was that gays are being discriminated against by specific people.

Being silenced means that your ability to speak is removed. It’s emotionally charged and not honest.

There are over 130 bakeries in Lakewood, Co. Claiming the lesbian couple were denied a cake is dishonest and emotionally charged.

Notice how you presented Reich talking points without context and deliberately withheld exculpatory information?

 

[progressive hunter]

Virtually ALL of your posts lack context and exculpatory evidence. You present your side, that's how adults operate.

It's been pretty entertaining seeing you call me viscous names when you think I'm in error...

...only to demonstrate your absolute ignorance on the very basics of the issue.

Like when you claimed that section 230 was written in 1934 despite the fact that it literally is specifying the internet. Or when you claimed Citizen's United wasn't about corporations despite that being explicitly mentioned in the decision.

You never reply to those comments. You just keep moving on acting like a jerk again and again. Never acknowledging your fundamental mistakes.

youre the last person that should complain about people running away when proven wrong,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're the one claiming OKeefe's piece is not credible. You ask them.

It's not credible because OKeefe isn't credible.

That's the thing about credibility, it affects everything you do.

Ad Hominem is the best you can do.

 

[colfax_m]

There are over 130 bakeries in Lakewood, Co. Claiming the lesbian couple were denied a cake is dishonest and emotionally charged.

Notice how you presented Reich talking points without context and deliberately withheld exculpatory information?

I never claimed that other bakeries wouldn't make the cake for them.

There's nothing exculpatory for Masterpiece Bakery in saying other bakeries would do the work. Masterpiece was still discriminating.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How would Florida state law be enforced against a business not located or licensed within the state? IOW, what recourse would the state have if Facebook were not compliant?

How does California collect taxes against businesses not located in the state?

There's a reason you're a Nazi, it's because you're not particularly bright.

 

[progressive hunter]

There are over 130 bakeries in Lakewood, Co. Claiming the lesbian couple were denied a cake is dishonest and emotionally charged.

Notice how you presented Reich talking points without context and deliberately withheld exculpatory information?

I never claimed that other bakeries wouldn't make the cake for them.

There's nothing exculpatory for Masterpiece Bakery in saying other bakeries would do the work. Masterpiece was still discriminating.

youre leaving out they would sell them anything but wouldnt participate in the religious event by baking a cake for a gay wedding,, thats not discrimination,,

 

[Hutch Starskey]

its not them saying it

Yes, it is.

no it isnt,, they are a platform not a publisher,,

no it isnt,, they are a platform not a publisher,,

Yes. A platform with terms outlining the acceptable use of it’s service and the possible consequences for continued violations of those terms agreed to by the user.

 

[progressive hunter]

its not them saying it

Yes, it is.

no it isnt,, they are a platform not a publisher,,

no it isnt,, they are a platform not a publisher,,

Yes. A platform with terms outlining the acceptable use of it’s service and the possible consequences for continued violations of those terms agreed to by the user.

they dont apply their terms equally and some didnt violate the terms and were still banned,,

 

[Uncensored2008]

Campaign finance laws apply here, not benefits to politicians over the rest of us. Completely separate issue.

Then don’t pretend this is about protecting freedom of expression. It’s about protecting politicians. And no, campaign finance law cannot apply, least if all in a post-Citizens United country. Citizens United protect private expenditures on behalf of candidates.

And a hotel cannot affect certain people outside the hotel. And a baker cannot affect anything outside their cake shop.

And the concept of “arbiter of truth” doesn’t apply to them either, which as the point of my comment.

Citizens United dealt with outlawing political speech by individuals. McCain-Feingold reserved political speech for the press and outlawed speech by individuals in collective Political Action Committees. A clear violation of the 1st and an affront to the concept of citizen government. It was a power play by your Reich to absolutely control what Americans could know before an election.

Tell the truth, you've never read the decision, have you?

Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court) - FEC.gov

FEC Record litigation summary published February 2010: Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court)

www.fec.gov

In-Kind Contributions by the consolidated tech monopoly to further the Reich deals with the suppression of candidates opposed of by the Reich. By silencing the opposition, the monopoly provides effectively free advertising for there Reich.

If the measure passes, the Reich will ultimately lose. Yes, there are many corrupt Reich judges who will uphold challenges, but ultimately it will go to the SCOTUS where it will be upheld, since it's black letter law.

Yes, I've read the decision which is why I know you don't know what you're talking about.

You also probably didn't read the link you just posted because the first sentence of your link proves you wrong.

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations.

Unlike the monopoly you defend, the "corporation" in Citizens United is a 503 (1)C political action committee, a collection of individuals pooling resources to take on the entrenched ruling caste that you serve.

It is quite simply, a collection of citizen united in a specific cause who are provided liability protection under the non-profit and charitable organizations statutes.

Notice that no one alleged in-kind contributions, merely that the Reich censored political speech critical of Hillary Clinton.

 

[colfax_m]

Unlike the monopoly you defend, the "corporation" in Citizens United is a 503 (1)C political action committee, a collection of individuals pooling resources to take on the entrenched ruling caste that you serve.

It is quite simply, a collection of citizen united in a specific cause who are provided liability protection under the non-profit and charitable organizations statutes.

Notice that no one alleged in-kind contributions, merely that the Reich censored political speech critical of Hillary Clinton.

Citizens United is a 501(c)(4). It is not a PAC. Those are totally different, but that's not particularly relevant outside demonstrating your failure to understand very basics of the issue.

And you fail to realize that the Citizen's United decision wasn't limited to just these organizations. It was a broad and sweeping decision that struck down limitations on all kinds of organizations like corporations. You realize that these decisions are written by lawyers. The word corporation wasn't used as a cover to mean something else, it was literally talking about corporations which includes corporations such as Facebook and Twitter.

Independent expenditures to promote candidates is constitutionally protected so there can be no consideration of an "in kind" donation here.

 

[dblack]

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

What does "another information content provider" mean to you?

Also note;

{Section 230 immunity is not unlimited. The statute specifically excepts federal criminal liability (§230(e)(1)), electronic privacy violations (§230(e)(4)) and intellectual property claims (§230(e)(2)).[9] There is also no immunity from state laws that are consistent with 230(e)(3) though state criminal laws have been held preempted in cases such as Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna[10] and Voicenet Communications, Inc. v. Corbett[11] (agreeing that "the plain language of the CDA provides ... immunity from inconsistent state criminal laws"). }

"Section 230", as justification for government lording it over social media sites, is a just a convenient excuse. Once again, conservatives are using liberal tactics against liberals. It's basically a rehash of "you didn't build that". They insist that, because social media companies presumably benefit from Section 230, they are obligated to host state propaganda, obligated to knuckle under to the mandates of government. Which is why I think they should just get rid of the law and let the courts and lawyers sort it out. Just to take away the excuse, if nothing else.

There's a similar a law, here in Colorado, "protecting" ski resorts. Skiing is a dangerous activity. Personal injury lawyers have made entire careers out of it. Eventually, the state got tired of its courtrooms being clogged with such cases and passed a law to streamline the process. They spelled out exactly what ski resorts were liable for and what was on the skier. Mostly, they followed the precedents and criteria that courts had already been using to resolve these cases, but codified it into law to reduce the amount of "haggling" in the form of court cases.

The important thing here is that, despite the common characterization, the law doesn't "protect" ski resorts. It's just a convenience for the state, to cut down on repetitive lawsuits, all covering the same issues. If it were repealed, things would go back to the way they were (ski resorts did just fine before it was passed). The resorts would create liability waivers to cover their risk, and there would be more lawsuits. The courts would revert to using the precedents and criteria they'd used previously and life would go on.

The same thing would happen if 230 were repealed. The courts aren't going to destroy social media or the internet - because people want and value social media and the internet. The social media companies would amend their service agreements as necessary. Courts would establish precedents guiding associated lawsuits, and life would go on.

 

[rightwinger]

There are over 130 bakeries in Lakewood, Co. Claiming the lesbian couple were denied a cake is dishonest and emotionally charged.

Notice how you presented Reich talking points without context and deliberately withheld exculpatory information?

I never claimed that other bakeries wouldn't make the cake for them.

There's nothing exculpatory for Masterpiece Bakery in saying other bakeries would do the work. Masterpiece was still discriminating.

We don’t serve negros is still not allowed regardless of how many black bakeries there may be

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

It's the only legitimate option for a free society

Derp...
But then the society is only free to those who are accommodated.

That becomes problematic in a country where the founding principles are equality and freedom.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, in you opinion, just because Okeefe is not credible to you, anything he produces, despite your inability to refute such production, is automatically not credible?

That is completely illogical.

Of course it's logical. Why would I expect him to produce credible products after a career of producing misleading and agenda driven content?

I wouldn't and neither should you. It's like a doctor spends his entire career pitching literal snake oil for ailments and then comes out with a new product saying it'll cure cancer. Are you going to believe his new product cures cancer because you can't refute it or are you going to rely on his credibility?

IT'S CONTENT OUT OF THE MOUTHS OF FACEBOOK MODERATORS!!!! WHAT MORE DOES HE NEED TO PROVIDE?????

Jesus. Can you get any more obtuse?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There are over 130 bakeries in Lakewood, Co. Claiming the lesbian couple were denied a cake is dishonest and emotionally charged.

Notice how you presented Reich talking points without context and deliberately withheld exculpatory information?

I never claimed that other bakeries wouldn't make the cake for them.

There's nothing exculpatory for Masterpiece Bakery in saying other bakeries would do the work. Masterpiece was still discriminating.

We don’t serve negros is still not allowed regardless of how many black bakeries there may be

Right, but "we don't serve _________" is okay on facebook.

This is why we don't accept your bullshit excuses.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

It’s not. This is Desantis being a little thug to protect his own party.

I agree. It's no different. PA laws were a necessary evil for a period of time, but now they are the tyrant's tool. You're getting a taste of it right here.

I agree. It's no different. PA laws were a necessary evil for a period of time, but now they are the tyrant's tool. You're getting a taste of it right here.

Nonsense.
Those removed or banned were initially accommodated. Their continuing behaviors led to their removal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

It’s not. This is Desantis being a little thug to protect his own party.

I agree. It's no different. PA laws were a necessary evil for a period of time, but now they are the tyrant's tool. You're getting a taste of it right here.

I agree. It's no different. PA laws were a necessary evil for a period of time, but now they are the tyrant's tool. You're getting a taste of it right here.

Nonsense.
Those removed or banned were initially accommodated. Their continuing behaviors led to their removal.

Separate but "equal"?