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

[Uncensored2008]

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

Like your defense of Section 230?

Until PA laws are repealed - if ever - they must be applied to ALL. You demand they be applied only when it furthers the agenda of the Reich.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Except that's not what's happening.

Don't be more of a fucktard than you usually are Chang.

{
In the video, which is dated January 8, the same day President Trump was permanently banned from Twitter, Dorsey tells employees, “This is going to be much bigger than just one account [Trump’s] and it's going to go on for much longer than just this day this week. And the next few weeks and go on beyond the inauguration.”

He later emphasized, “It is not going away.”

Watch the full video released by Project Veritas:}

Video censored and banned by the monopoly is here;

Project Veritas Video Exposes Twitter CEO’s Censorship Plans: ‘Much Bigger Than Just One Account’

On Thursday night, Project Veritas released a secretly recorded video of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey talking about his company’s censorship plans beyond President Donald Trump and his exit from office.

www.newsbusters.org

 

[colfax_m]

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..

No, it still doesn't say that CU is a PAC, it says the decision led to a classification of a new type of PAC.

You're so confused, it's sad. The Citizen's United in the decision was not a PAC or a super PAC, it was a 501 organization. Those are different. What you're still not understanding is that Citizen's United was a sweeping decision which changed a lot about campaign finance law and allowed independent expenditures from outside groups, including 501s and corporations.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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..

No, it still doesn't say that CU is a PAC, it says the decision led to a classification of a new type of PAC.

You're so confused, it's sad. The Citizen's United in the decision was not a PAC or a super PAC, it was a 501 organization. Those are different. What you're still not understanding is that Citizen's United was a sweeping decision which changed a lot about campaign finance law and allowed independent expenditures from outside groups, including 501s and corporations.

Wow, you are pathological.

 

[colfax_m]

Would the baker have refused to sell the couple a cake if they picked one out from the display case? No.

Actually yes, the baker stated that he would not sell them any cakes that would be used at their wedding regardless of where they came from.

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

Of course it is. Who else is going to have a gay wedding other than gay customers?

 

[colfax_m]

Wow, you are pathological.

No, I just know more about this than you.

You agreed that Citizens United in the court case was a 501(c)(4). Surely you must understand that a 501(c)(4) is not a PAC. PACs are defined by a different section, 527. Like, this is pretty important to you realizing you are wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wow, you are pathological.

No, I just know more about this than you.

You agreed that Citizens United in the court case was a 501(c)(4). Surely you must understand that a 501(c)(4) is not a PAC. PACs are defined by a different section, 527. Like, this is pretty important to you realizing you are wrong.

Your own cite says otherwise.

 

[colfax_m]

Your own cite says otherwise.

It doesn’t say that a 501(c)(4) organization is a PAC. It doesn’t even make sense to call a 501(c)(4) a political action committee given that 501(c)(4)s are supposedly forbidden to be primarily political.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your own cite says otherwise.

It doesn’t say that a 501(c)(4) organization is a PAC. It doesn’t even make sense to call a 501(c)(4) a political action committee given that 501(c)(4)s are supposedly forbidden to be primarily political.

It directly states (6 times) that Citizens United is a PAC.

You are as pathetic as you are dishonest. What, is the Reich offering you a bonus if you can bullshit me?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Would the baker have refused to sell the couple a cake if they picked one out from the display case? No.

Actually yes, the baker stated that he would not sell them any cakes that would be used at their wedding regardless of where they came from.

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

Of course it is. Who else is going to have a gay wedding other than gay customers?

You assume too much.

 

[Crepitus]

Except that's not what's happening.

Don't be more of a fucktard than you usually are Chang.

{
In the video, which is dated January 8, the same day President Trump was permanently banned from Twitter, Dorsey tells employees, “This is going to be much bigger than just one account [Trump’s] and it's going to go on for much longer than just this day this week. And the next few weeks and go on beyond the inauguration.”

He later emphasized, “It is not going away.”

Watch the full video released by Project Veritas:}

Video censored and banned by the monopoly is here;

Project Veritas Video Exposes Twitter CEO’s Censorship Plans: ‘Much Bigger Than Just One Account’

On Thursday night, Project Veritas released a secretly recorded video of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey talking about his company’s censorship plans beyond President Donald Trump and his exit from office.

www.newsbusters.org

Fake news.

 

[colfax_m]

It directly states (6 times) that Citizens United is a PAC.

If the Citizen's United PAC were the issue, there'd be no case since the law didn't forbid PACs from electioneering, which was the whole point of the lawsuit.

Let's just get one fact straight, focus on this question. A 501(c)(4) organization is not a PAC. Agreed?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It directly states (6 times) that Citizens United is a PAC.

If the Citizen's United PAC were the issue, there'd be no case since the law didn't forbid PACs from electioneering, which was the whole point of the lawsuit.

Let's just get one fact straight, focus on this question. A 501(c)(4) organization is not a PAC. Agreed?

For purposes of the IRS code or in general?

 

[colfax_m]

For purposes of the IRS code or in general?

They’re one in the same. The IRS code determines what they are legally allowed to do.

We are so far from the main point here anyway. The point is that corporations are allowed to spend money to benefit candidates. The idea that social media policies could be considered campaign donations is absurd.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

For purposes of the IRS code or in general?

They’re one in the same. The IRS code determines what they are legally allowed to do.

We are so far from the main point here anyway. The point is that corporations are allowed to spend money to benefit candidates. The idea that social media policies could be considered campaign donations is absurd.

It's considered a thing of value. Desantis got the idea from your Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

 

[colfax_m]

It's considered a thing of value.

So what? People are allowed to speak in favor of their candidate. That’s, you know, freedom of speech. The term you guys constantly misuse actually applies here.

 

[colfax_m]

For education purposes, an In Kind Donation occurs when someone gives something that would normally cost money for free or reduced cost to a campaign at the request of or in consultation with that campaign.

Types of contributions - FEC.gov

Contributions are the most common source of campaign support. A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election. Information on types of contributions including monetary, in-kind contributions, earmarked contributions, and proceeds from sales.

www.fec.gov

We are so far from this.

 

[kaz]

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

Just irks the crap out of you when leftists can't silence your opposition, huh Nazi?

The public is paying for expansion of the internet. Facebook, et al are perfectly allowed to create their own platform. But if they are going to use the platform funded by taxpayers, then they can't deny service any more than they can restrict access to roads.

If the gas company were denying service to leftists, you'd drop a massive load, Nazi

 

[kaz]

This will likely get struck down by the courts. Also, it’s a violation of association rights, business rights, and property rights, but those don’t matter to those that only pay lip service to those principles anyway.

human rights come before those,,

You think you have a human right to a social media account? How hilariously entitled.

So just to be clear, if the electric company cuts your service for being a leftist, you don't have a problem with that.

Sure you don't, fascist. You're just for it because you're a Nazi and it's being used to silence your opposition.

Facebook, Google, et al can set up their own networks to provide their services. THEN they can deny service however they want. But they both decided to use taxpayer funded delivery systems, so they need to deliver their services to anyone who wants them

 

[Faun]

This will likely get struck down by the courts. Also, it’s a violation of association rights, business rights, and property rights, but those don’t matter to those that only pay lip service to those principles anyway.

human rights come before those,,

You think you have a human right to a social media account? How hilariously entitled.

So just to be clear, if the electric company cuts your service for being a leftist, you don't have a problem with that.

Sure you don't, fascist. You're just for it because you're a Nazi and it's being used to silence your opposition.

Facebook, Google, et al can set up their own networks to provide their services. THEN they can deny service however they want. But they both decided to use taxpayer funded delivery systems, so they need to deliver their services to anyone who wants them

Stop kazzing. Twitter and Facebook aren't banning members for being rightists. They're banning them for violating their terms of service. Just like the electric company does.