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

[dblack]

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

This is the 21st century CRA.
Social media treats certain groups unfairly. Just like some groups of people treated blacks unfairly.
You fascists on the left should love this!

And the stalwart defenders of liberty on the right should hate it. But here we are.

 

[WEATHER53]

Now that half dozen regular posters have admitted that they support censorship and feel it’s just in order to make them feel secure, when does the clamoring begin to remove posts and posters here who do not endorse liberal views?

 

[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.

Freedom doesn't mean you will be accommodated. That's a false conception of freedom that undermines actual liberty.

Also, "equality" is not a founding premise. Maybe you're thinking of "equal rights under the law", an entirely different concern.

How free is someone if they cannot get a job, buy a home, educate themselves or their family, seek healthcare, buy supplies or groceries, travel freely, etc?

You're mixing up a lot of shit here. But mostly, you're conflating freedom and empowerment. They're not the same thing. The freedom to seek employment doesn't mean you'll find a job. The freedom to buy a home doesn't mean you'll be able to afford one. Just like freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone will listen to you, or post your shit on their website.

Without accommodation, a person can be completely disenfranchised from society. We’ve certainly seen this to be true.

I suppose so. If ALL of society refused to accommodate a person, that would be the case. But if that ever actually happened, what kind of person would we be talking about? How deplorable would someone have to be for ALL of society to refuse to associate with them? And why would you want to force people to accommodate such a person?

Equality is perhaps the foremost founding principle. Without it. No one is free if anyone can be disenfranchised.

You seem to have a radically different conception of freedom. Political freedom means you can't be arrested for doing something. It doesn't mean other people have to cater to your wishes.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note that life, liberty and happiness come after equality.

Note also that it doesn't say all men are equal. Says they were created equal. It means they have equal rights, that they all have equal status under the law. Not that everyone must be equally empowered by society.

The crazy thing about the "equal empowerment" notion, is that it actually undermines equal rights under the law. In order for government to ensure that everyone is equally empowered it inevitably treats people differently.

I disagree completely. That libertarian line of thinking precludes the possibility of a functional, truly free society. There are limits placed on liberty. There has to be or there would be mayhem. Obviously we’ve seen what happens when society is free to decide the fate of a certain ethnicity or race. Equal status under the law today means public accommodation.

 

[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

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.

Freedom doesn't mean you will be accommodated. That's a false conception of freedom that undermines actual liberty.

Also, "equality" is not a founding premise. Maybe you're thinking of "equal rights under the law", an entirely different concern.

How free is someone if they cannot get a job, buy a home, educate themselves or their family, seek healthcare, buy supplies or groceries, travel freely, etc?

You're mixing up a lot of shit here. But mostly, you're conflating freedom and empowerment. They're not the same thing. The freedom to seek employment doesn't mean you'll find a job. The freedom to buy a home doesn't mean you'll be able to afford one. Just like freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone will listen to you, or post your shit on their website.

Without accommodation, a person can be completely disenfranchised from society. We’ve certainly seen this to be true.

I suppose so. If ALL of society refused to accommodate a person, that would be the case. But if that ever actually happened, what kind of person would we be talking about? How deplorable would someone have to be for ALL of society to refuse to associate with them? And why would you want to force people to accommodate such a person?

Equality is perhaps the foremost founding principle. Without it. No one is free if anyone can be disenfranchised.

You seem to have a radically different conception of freedom. Political freedom means you can't be arrested for doing something. It doesn't mean other people have to cater to your wishes.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note that life, liberty and happiness come after equality.

Note also that it doesn't say all men are equal. Says they were created equal. It means they have equal rights, that they all have equal status under the law. Not that everyone must be equally empowered by society.

The crazy thing about the "equal empowerment" notion, is that it actually undermines equal rights under the law. In order for government to ensure that everyone is equally empowered it inevitably treats people differently.

I disagree completely. That libertarian line of thinking precludes the possibility of a functional, truly free society.

Again, your conception of "truly free" is radically different than mine. I certainly wouldn't want to live under a regime that adopted as a premise.

There are limits placed on liberty. There has to be or there would be mayhem.

Of course. That has nothing to do with government trying to ensure equal empowerment.

Equal status under the law today means public accommodation.

You can mean whatever you want when you say it. Still doesn't make any sense. The government isn't there to make sure you are "accommodated".

 

[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.

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.

Freedom doesn't mean you will be accommodated. That's a false conception of freedom that undermines actual liberty.

Also, "equality" is not a founding premise. Maybe you're thinking of "equal rights under the law", an entirely different concern.

How free is someone if they cannot get a job, buy a home, educate themselves or their family, seek healthcare, buy supplies or groceries, travel freely, etc?

You're mixing up a lot of shit here. But mostly, you're conflating freedom and empowerment. They're not the same thing. The freedom to seek employment doesn't mean you'll find a job. The freedom to buy a home doesn't mean you'll be able to afford one. Just like freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone will listen to you, or post your shit on their website.

Without accommodation, a person can be completely disenfranchised from society. We’ve certainly seen this to be true.

I suppose so. If ALL of society refused to accommodate a person, that would be the case. But if that ever actually happened, what kind of person would we be talking about? How deplorable would someone have to be for ALL of society to refuse to associate with them? And why would you want to force people to accommodate such a person?

Equality is perhaps the foremost founding principle. Without it. No one is free if anyone can be disenfranchised.

You seem to have a radically different conception of freedom. Political freedom means you can't be arrested for doing something. It doesn't mean other people have to cater to your wishes.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note that life, liberty and happiness come after equality.

Note also that it doesn't say all men are equal. Says they were created equal. It means they have equal rights, that they all have equal status under the law. Not that everyone must be equally empowered by society.

The crazy thing about the "equal empowerment" notion, is that it actually undermines equal rights under the law. In order for government to ensure that everyone is equally empowered it inevitably treats people differently.

I disagree completely. That libertarian line of thinking precludes the possibility of a functional, truly free society.

Again, your conception of "truly free" is radically different than mine. I certainly wouldn't want to live under a regime that adopted as a premise.

There are limits placed on liberty. There has to be or there would be mayhem.

Of course. That has nothing to do with government trying to ensure equal empowerment.

Equal status under the law today means public accommodation.

You can mean whatever you want when you say it. Still doesn't make any sense. The government isn't there to make sure you are "accommodated".

I would be 1000x more likely to raise hell about this Desantis move if these shits didn't demonstrate on the daily that they would do and have done THE EXACT SAME SHIT when it favors them.

Principles...

 

[colfax_m]

Hard to see this as some civil rights movement when they’re only trying to protect politicians.

I mean, it’s just sad.

 

[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.

Freedom doesn't mean you will be accommodated. That's a false conception of freedom that undermines actual liberty.

Also, "equality" is not a founding premise. Maybe you're thinking of "equal rights under the law", an entirely different concern.

How free is someone if they cannot get a job, buy a home, educate themselves or their family, seek healthcare, buy supplies or groceries, travel freely, etc?

You're mixing up a lot of shit here. But mostly, you're conflating freedom and empowerment. They're not the same thing. The freedom to seek employment doesn't mean you'll find a job. The freedom to buy a home doesn't mean you'll be able to afford one. Just like freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone will listen to you, or post your shit on their website.

Without accommodation, a person can be completely disenfranchised from society. We’ve certainly seen this to be true.

I suppose so. If ALL of society refused to accommodate a person, that would be the case. But if that ever actually happened, what kind of person would we be talking about? How deplorable would someone have to be for ALL of society to refuse to associate with them? And why would you want to force people to accommodate such a person?

Equality is perhaps the foremost founding principle. Without it. No one is free if anyone can be disenfranchised.

You seem to have a radically different conception of freedom. Political freedom means you can't be arrested for doing something. It doesn't mean other people have to cater to your wishes.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Note that life, liberty and happiness come after equality.

Note also that it doesn't say all men are equal. Says they were created equal. It means they have equal rights, that they all have equal status under the law. Not that everyone must be equally empowered by society.

The crazy thing about the "equal empowerment" notion, is that it actually undermines equal rights under the law. In order for government to ensure that everyone is equally empowered it inevitably treats people differently.

I disagree completely. That libertarian line of thinking precludes the possibility of a functional, truly free society.

Again, your conception of "truly free" is radically different than mine. I certainly wouldn't want to live under a regime that adopted as a premise.

There are limits placed on liberty. There has to be or there would be mayhem.

Of course. That has nothing to do with government trying to ensure equal empowerment.

Equal status under the law today means public accommodation.

You can mean whatever you want when you say it. Still doesn't make any sense. The government isn't there to make sure you are "accommodated".

Freedom has one definition. Living under the whims of others, especially those who hold the entry to power or wealth, is not freedom. Govt is the only authority that can make sure everyone has access.
We make it what we want by enacting laws.

I don’t know why that is difficult for you.

 

[TNHarley]

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

This is the 21st century CRA.
Social media treats certain groups unfairly. Just like some groups of people treated blacks unfairly.
You fascists on the left should love this!

trump signed a contract with Facebook when he clicked agreement to their TOS rules. In those rules he agreed with Facebook that if he violated those rules and broke that contract, Facebook has the right to kick him off.

trump signed a contract with Facebook. trump violated that contract. Facebook legally invokes their right to kick him off.

trump agreed that Facebook can kick him off if he violated the contract.

It's as simple as that.

Now trump, you and his followers are crying and bitching about it. Tough. Deal with it and stop your crying like a little baby.

Who mentioned trump? Good lord. ******* OBSESSED

 

[TNHarley]

Social media treats certain groups unfairly. Just like some groups of people treated blacks unfairly.

It’s a protection for politicians to get away with saying nonsense on social media without repercussions. Comparing it to the CRA is asinine.

No it isnt.

 

[colfax_m]

No it isnt.

Of course it is. This is a politician protecting a politician. It’s about as craven as it gets.

He’s not doing it to help Floridians.

 

[TNHarley]

No it isnt.

Of course it is. This is a politician protecting a politician. It’s about as craven as it gets.

He’s not doing it to help Floridians.

I just read some of the bill. It is just about politicians and not civilians. My apologies.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Hard to see this as some civil rights movement when they’re only trying to protect politicians.

I mean, it’s just sad.

Because only certain members of our society deserve civil right protections, right?

Not that it matters.

 

[dblack]

Freedom has one definition. Living under the whims of others, especially those who hold the entry to power or wealth, is not freedom. Govt is the only authority that can make sure everyone has access.
We make it what we want by enacting laws.

I don’t know why that is difficult for you.

Because what you're talking about is actually the opposite of freedom.

 

[colfax_m]

Because only certain members of our society deserve civil right protections, right?

Apparently just politicians according to DeSantis.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because only certain members of our society deserve civil right protections, right?

Apparently just politicians according to DeSantis.

You only give a shit when it's not one of your pet "class" of people who you think should be "more" equal (advantaged).

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Freedom has one definition. Living under the whims of others, especially those who hold the entry to power or wealth, is not freedom. Govt is the only authority that can make sure everyone has access.
We make it what we want by enacting laws.

I don’t know why that is difficult for you.

Because what you're talking about is actually the opposite of freedom.

Yes. The guy above me is the example of how this phenom plays out.

 

[colfax_m]

Because only certain members of our society deserve civil right protections, right?

Apparently just politicians according to DeSantis.

You only give a shit when it's not one of your pet "class" of people who you think should be "more" equal (advantaged).

A class is a characteristic, like sexual orientation. The class protects all people equally. Gay people and straight people all the same.

It just seems like it protects minorities because they’re the ones subject to discrimination.

 

[dblack]

Because only certain members of our society deserve civil right protections, right?

Apparently just politicians according to DeSantis.

You only give a shit when it's not one of your pet "class" of people who you think should be "more" equal (advantaged).

A class is a characteristic, like sexual orientation. The class protects all people equally. Gay people and straight people all the same.

That was the original rationale, formulated to steer around the obvious unequal protection involved. But that conceit has mostly been dropped. Most people today, including lawyers and judges, use "protected class" to refer to a class of people. Because that's how it plays out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

This is a lie – that’s not what was said.

All religious are safeguarded from government overreach by the First Amendment, including Christians.

No one is saying the rights of Christians aren’t entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[mamooth]

So, in how many ways will this fail?

1. First amendment
2. Commerce clause
3. Bill of Attainder

About #3, a Bill of Attainder is a law made to selectively target one person or entity. The Constitution specifically prohibits such things.

As the law is written, any message board or blog would qualify as "social media", meaning that any moderation anywhere would be illegal. Conservative social media spots, which are the most fervent censors out there, would have to stop censoring. Losing the ability to censor would be unacceptable to conservatives, so Florida would have to try to qualify things so that the law only applied to Facebook and Twitter, and that would make it obviously a Bill of Attainder.