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

[progressive hunter]

I never said anything about state policy.

I never said you did, but rather than watch you use it as yet another diversion, let's skip the question about state policy. Just tell me what the hell you mean by "equal treatment"? Do you think people have a right to equal treatment?

I already did,, now you tell me who gave up what rights??

 

[dblack]

I never said anything about state policy.

I never said you did, but rather than watch you use it as yet another diversion, let's skip the question about state policy. Just tell me what the hell you mean by "equal treatment"? Do you think people have a right to equal treatment?

I already did,, now you tell me who gave up what rights??

More diversion. Grow a pair and get back to me.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said anything about state policy.

I never said you did, but rather than watch you use it as yet another diversion, let's skip the question about state policy. Just tell me what the hell you mean by "equal treatment"? Do you think people have a right to equal treatment?

I already did,, now you tell me who gave up what rights??

More diversion. Grow a pair and get back to me.

its a simple question,, why wont you answer it??

 

[dblack]

I never said anything about state policy.

I never said you did, but rather than watch you use it as yet another diversion, let's skip the question about state policy. Just tell me what the hell you mean by "equal treatment"? Do you think people have a right to equal treatment?

I already did,, now you tell me who gave up what rights??

More diversion. Grow a pair and get back to me.

its a simple question,, why wont you answer it??

Or, don't.

 

[progressive hunter]

I never said anything about state policy.

I never said you did, but rather than watch you use it as yet another diversion, let's skip the question about state policy. Just tell me what the hell you mean by "equal treatment"? Do you think people have a right to equal treatment?

I already did,, now you tell me who gave up what rights??

More diversion. Grow a pair and get back to me.

its a simple question,, why wont you answer it??

Or, don't.

dont what??

come on man!! you can answer it since you said it??

 

[Faun]

Asshole Ron DeSantis Spews Out Freedom Killing Regulations like a Pez Dispenser!

DeSantis literally ceased enforcing safety protocols to help prevent the spread of Coronavirus in the state of Florida when Florida leads the nation in the number of new cases and the number of new deaths.

​

 

[colfax_m]

That's bullshit.

FFS, stay on topic.

 

[DBA]

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".

Here is a direct quote from Section 230. From my reading, “good faith” certainly seems to be a requirement.

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in
good faith
to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

 

[colfax_m]

Here is a direct quote from Section 230. From my reading, “good faith” certainly seems to be a requirement.

Like I said, section 230(c)(1) does not require good faith and courts have generally seen the section that you quoted as redundant. (C)(1) is all that is needed to grant the platforms the rights of publishers without the liability of publishers.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Here is a direct quote from Section 230. From my reading, “good faith” certainly seems to be a requirement.

Like I said, section 230(c)(1) does not require good faith and courts have generally seen the section that you quoted as redundant. (C)(1) is all that is needed to grant the platforms the rights of publishers without the liability of publishers.

Then, why do we need the "Civil Liability" section? Window dressing???

 

[colfax_m]

Then, why do we need the "Civil Liability" section? Window dressing???

It doesn’t really matter. The previous section says they’re not the publisher so that’s all the civil liability they need.

Section 230 probably should be revisited and a bunch of people are taking shots at it but I haven’t seen anything that’s been an improvement so far and with Republicans being the way they are, nothing is likely to change.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Oh cool, lying. How unique.

{The Political Action Committee (PAC) Citizens United was founded in 1988 by Floyd Brown, a longtime Washington political consultant. The group promotes free enterprise, socially conservative causes and candidates who advance their mission.}

Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But you're right, it's (4) not (3)

 

[colfax_m]

But you're right, it's (4) not (3)

A PAC is a 527 organization. It’s separate from the 501c organizations. There is a Citizens United PAC and there is a Citizens United 501(c)(4). They lawsuit was about the provisions affecting 501(c)(4) expenditures.

In the United States, a political action committee(PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.

Political action committee - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not lying. I just know more than you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

"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.

There is a concept that libertarians hold - which means you oppose - known as "equal justice under the law." This means that laws must apply to all. You and your Reich really hate that, You seek the use of law as a weapon to further the agenda of your party.

The Florida statute holds the monopoly to the same law that all others are held to regarding in-kind contributions. You don't like this because it impugns the power of your Reich. The monopoly furthers the agenda of the Reich so you demand big government support and protect the monopoly.

There is a concept that libertarians hold - which means you oppose - that recognizes that outside of natural monopolies (that is a unique resource) the only way a monopoly can exist is with the support of government. The FaceTwat-Googazonpple trust is carefully maintained with provisions like section 230 that ensures the monopoly is protected from the liability for what they publish.

Oh, and can a ski resort ban people for the wrong skin color? How about the wrong political affiliations?

 

[colfax_m]

"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.

There is a concept that libertarians hold - which means you oppose - known as "equal justice under the law." This means that laws must apply to all. You and your Reich really hate that, You seek the use of law as a weapon to further the agenda of your party.

The Florida statute holds the monopoly to the same law that all others are held to regarding in-kind contributions. You don't like this because it impugns the power of your Reich. The monopoly furthers the agenda of the Reich so you demand big government support and protect the monopoly.

There is a concept that libertarians hold - which means you oppose - that recognizes that outside of natural monopolies (that is a unique resource) the only way a monopoly can exist is with the support of government. The FaceTwat-Googazonpple trust is carefully maintained with provisions like section 230 that ensures the monopoly is protected from the liability for what they publish.

Oh, and can a ski resort ban people for the wrong skin color? How about the wrong political affiliations?

Basically all of your post is inaccurate.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But you're right, it's (4) not (3)

A PAC is a 527 organization. It’s separate from the 501c organizations. There is a Citizens United PAC and there is a Citizens United 501(c)(4). They lawsuit was about the provisions affecting 501(c)(4) expenditures.

In the United States, a political action committee(PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.

Political action committee - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not lying. I just know more than you.

Tell the truth, did you read your own cite, or did you just think you could "get away with it?"

From the Wiki;

{The result of the Citizens United and SpeechNow.org decisions was the rise of a new type of political action committee in 2010, }

Even your cite specifically names CU as a PAC..

 

[Fang]

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

But you have no issue with a privately owned bakery being forced to do business against their religious beliefs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not sure you understand that Brown v Board of education was about government services.

SO your "Nazis Only Lunch Counter is Okay" because Woolworths is a private business....

 

[hadit]

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.

Would the baker have refused to sell the couple a cake if they picked one out from the display case? No. Therefore, it was not the person but the act that was in dispute.

"I will not participate in a gay wedding" =/= "I will not serve gay customers".

 

[Uncensored2008]

and the reality is youre defending big corps...

Yeah, but Mega-Corps like Apple, Nike, Fascistbook and Twatter serve the Reich. So it's different.