Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock
from the wasting-taxpayer-funds dept
And, off we go. We’ve talked about a bunch of states pushing blatantly unconstitutional social media content moderation bills, with Florida leading the pack as the most eager to waste taxpayer money on something so obviously bogus. As you’ll recall, at the end of last month, Florida really added some unconstitutional icing on the unconstitutional cake by exempting Disney (and any other company that owned a theme park in Florida) from the bill’s social media requirements.
The bill has a few different unconstitutional provisions, but the one getting the most attention is that it bans non-theme park associated websites from removing content or accounts from people running for office. There are also the ridiculous transparency clauses that have become stupidly popular of late, and which really serve as a smokescreen to allow users to sue websites for being moderated.
And despite tons of experts explaining why this is unconstitutional, Governor Ron DeSantis — who made this bill a key plank in his “look at me, I’m a MAGA culture warrior” platform — has now signed the bill. And to put a clown show cherry on top of the censorious, unconstitutional cake, DeSantis highlighted infamous provocateur and fabulist James O’Keefe from Project Veritas, who attended the bill signing, and is currently suing Twitter for defamation over its reasons for kicking him off their platform.
Social media companies ?use secret algorithms and shadow banning to shape debates and control the flow of information,? DeSantis said. ?But yet they evade accountability by claiming they?re just neutral platforms, even as they amplify partisan agendas and censor dissent. Every day, they act as the proverbial Big Brother, and 2021 looks an awful lot like the fictitious 1984.?
I mean, I just can’t even bother to respond to this nonsense.
As the Orlando Sentinel article notes, this attack on internet companies comes at the same time that Miami, in particular, has been hyping itself up as a good destination for tech startups. Except that this bill would create a massive liability regime for any internet company that hosts any user-generated content. I mean, unless they buy one of the thousands of theme parks found around Florida.
None of that will matter in the long run, because this bill is going to be tossed out eventually, after DeSantis wastes a ton of taxpayer funds trying and failing to defend this bill in court. The bill is (1) pre-empted by Federal law, as Section 230 makes clear, and (2) a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the 1st Amendment’s prohibition on laws that infringe upon speech rights, not to mention a pretty obvious attack on basic property rights.
But, these days, things like the Constitution and free speech take a back seat to Republican culture warrioring and victim-playing.
Even some Republicans recognize just how dumb the bill is:
?My concern is about potential candidates, about crazy people, Nazis and child molesters and pedophiles who realize they can say anything they want … if all they do is fill out those two pieces of paper,? said Fine, R-Brevard County.
Though, it’s notable that Fine still voted for the bill, despite recognizing that a key clause is going to have wildly stupid consequences. And that’s basically all you need to know about why Florida will never become the tech hub it pretends it wants to be.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, corruption, florida, ron desantis, section 230, social media
Comments on “Florida Man Signs Blatantly Corrupt And Unconstitutional Social Media Bill, Cementing Florida As Tech Laughing Stock”
'All animals are equal, political animals are more equal though'
“My concern is about potential candidates, about crazy people, Nazis and child molesters and pedophiles who realize they can say anything they want … if all they do is fill out those two pieces of paper,” said Fine, R-Brevard County.
‘So… you’re not voting for it?’
‘Are you kidding, those first two groups are our party’s bread-and-butter these days of course I’m voting for it!’
Nothing like voicing concern that ‘crazy people, nazis and child molesters’ will be able to say whatever they want without consequences if the bill is passed only to vote in favor of that bill to show just how much they actually care about those groups.
On a more general note gotta love the 1984 reference in favor of a government bill to force private companies to host speech and users that they don’t want, pretty sure he and his are not on the side of that comparison they think they are.
Re: 'All animals are equal, political animals are more equal tho
Only the first two?
Re: Re: 'All animals are equal, political animals are more equal
"Only the first two?"
For all the republicans kept harping about democrats who were friendly with Epstein they’re remarkably mum about that guy’s tenure as the former president 45’s best friend. If you’re in Epstein’s black book with 16 phone numbers next to your name it’s an indicator you relied heavily on him to matchmake your dates.
On the whole if you’re looking for someone who has freakish yet legal and possibly embarrasing sexual escapades, talk to the democrats.
If you’re looking for someone who has a casual disregard for age of consent or consent in general, look no further than the one screaming the loudest about morality. Usually with an (R) next to their name.
"Every accusation, a confession" should be the new motto of the GOP.
Let’s be honest, not even Florida man wouldn’t even put his name on a bill so batshit crazy and so detached from reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
OMG! "say anything they want"! -- Just like 1A speech NOW.
Masnick in panic that First Amendment might be upheld by gov’t, instead of gov’t authorizing corporations, first to exist, then to control all speech, which makes them de facto agents of gov’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: OMG! "say anything they want"! -- Just like 1A spe
My bet is this becomes the pattern. — Now that masnicks have come out gleefully boasting of their power, no one can doubt their intention of silencing all opposition.
Re: Re: Re:
What power? I thought your thesis statement was that Masnick had no power, you dimwitted single-celled amoeba?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: OMG! "say anything they want"! -- Just like 1A spe
India knows that the only way to treat censoring corporations from becoming de facto Royalty is with armed men:
Delhi Police Raid Twitter Office in India After Social Media Giant Labels Tweet From Right-Wing Political Spox "Manipulated Media" (VIDEO)
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/05/delhi-police-raid-twitter-office-india-social-media-giant-labels-tweet-right-wing-political-spox-manipulated-media-video/
Re: Re: OMG! "say anything they want"! -- Just like 1A
Gateway Pundit……pfffft!
I’m going to consult with my chihuahua, she has more accurate information than Gateway Drugs Pundit.
Re: OMG! "say anything they want"! -- Just like 1A speech NOW.
First Amendment clearly says the Government can’t do what it is doing. You do know what it says right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Normally, if a government were to use secret algorithms against its citizens to dole out punishment, and silence free speech, you would come out against it. But because a corporation is doing it, and you approve of its politics, you shall remain silent.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Since when does Twitter have the power to put me in jail and execute me?
God your a fucking idiot!
Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
*you’re
Re: Give me a minute, I'm sure it'll come to me
Blast, I know there’s some sort of difference between the government telling people what speech they will and will not allow/host on their private property and a private property owner setting rules of acceptable behavior for their own property but I just can’t place it…
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Hey Koby, I want you to show us examples of speech social media has "censored" and how the speaker was punished in the same way a government would. Can you do that? It shouldn’t be that difficult for you to find those examples since you have been harping about it for a very long time now.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
I paid bail on my McDonald’s Detention Center and Playground indictment.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Koby, if I ever have a disappointing son who believes in crackpot theories and acts like a delusional, far-right manchild, I’d take him to the courts, ask for a name change, and name him after you.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
But because a corporation is doing it, and you approve of its politics, you shall remain silent.
I don’t remain silent, you dimwitted fool. I talk about it all the fucking time. Sometimes I very, very vocally disapprove of the moderation choices of companies. I do so all the fucking time.
But THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the government can EVER step in and force a company to host speech it does not want to host.
And it has NOTHING to do with "politics." I don’t even know what "politics" any of these companies have, and I certainly would be unlikely to "approve" of any company’s "politics."
Koby, stop this nonsense. The bill is unconstitutional. If you believed in free speech and the 1st Amendment you wouldn’t support it. But, of course, because of YOUR politics — which you’ve clearly stated repeatedly — you’re happy and support DeSantis, and don’t care if it’s unconstitutional so long as you "own the libs." You’re a transparently foolish individual.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Actually, the government does this all the time. It’s called regulation. Just ask cable companies about the equal opportunity act that has been in effect since the 1930s. Florida can set the requirements for a corporation doing business in its state.
Also, aren’t the libs the ones that don’t value free speech anyway and want to censor people?
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
I hereby summon Stephen T. Stone to propel forth his copypasta of Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion on compelled speech…
Re: Re: Re:2
Normally, I’d ask you to gather all seven Dragon Balls before you summon me to grant a wish, but I guess~ I can make an exception this time. ????
[ahem]
Social media services are not public fora; if you need a citation for that, look no further than a Supreme Court ruling from 2019 where Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion:
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I’ll see you that one and raise you Knight First Amendment Institute for Columbia University v. Trump. The court there determined that a politician’s twitter feed was a public forum. SCOTUS never actually decided if the lower courts were right or not as it was dismissed after DJT was out of office as moot. So, while Twitter may not be a public forum in its entirety (at least currently), the feeds of politicians on twitter may well be.
Also, there is a long history of the US requiring equal access to at least broadcast medium to politicians. Laws on the books for nearly 100 years requiring that. Such "content neutral" laws are regularly accepted limitations on free speech.
Further, requiring transparency and adherence to codes of conduct are pretty normal consumer protection measures states have been requiring of companies for a long time as well. The Universal Deceptive Trade Practices Act has regulated companies in their dealings with consumers for quite a while as well. It’s been adopted by nearly every state in a pretty standardized form.
Re: Re: Re:4
That doesn’t mean Twitter is obligated — legally, morally, or ethically — to host the speech of any politician. What the ruling means is this: A given politician cannot block constituents on social media sites run by that politician. For example, AOC can’t block people in her district from viewing her tweets or interacting with her on Twitter. (But she can mute them, since that doesn’t remove their ability to interact and she isn’t under an obligation to read everyone else’s bullshit.)
If Twitter and Facebook were networks on a broadcast medium instead of communications tools, you might have a point.
One person says gay people should have all the same civil rights as straight people. Another person says gay people are abominations who should be “cured” of their “disease” before they kickstart the apocalypse by merely existing. Under “content neutral” laws, Twitter would have to host both forms of speech — even if it didn’t want to host the bigoted bullshit — or face some form of punishment for its refusal to associate with bigotry. Please explain how such an outcome is “acceptable”.
Speaking as someone who has moderation experience: You can have a strict code of conduct and still run into situations that said code doesn’t cover. The ability to adapt moderation for new situations in a timely is why requiring the strictest adherence possible doesn’t work — after all, you can’t adapt on the fly if the law won’t let you adapt without first filing forms in triplicate.
That act doesn’t (and shouldn’t) regulate what speech a private entity — no matter how large or small — can choose to host.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
There’s a lot wrong in there, but just to cover a few:
There actually now is a legal requirement hat Twitter host speech of any politician. Florida’s.
Re. "equal access" – no. You missed the point. The fact that they can regulate speech in that forum means that the regulation of such speech isn’t an "unconstitutional" infringement of a corporation’s free speech. Applying it to social media is just a matter of enacting similar legislation to apply to social media – which Florida just did.
Re. "content neutral" – no. You missed the point, again. That is how courts test to see if government regulations on free speech are valid if the regulation is "content neutral." A "content neutral" law is one that applies to all speech regardless of the substance. For example, laws that prohibit soliciting in a public park, or regulate the hours of demonstrations in a park, or sound (decibel) limits.
And the UDTPA clear does say what a corporation cannot say or publish. To wit, Twitter cannot publish a TOS that it clearly does not follow. The UDTPA specifically precludes corporations from "represent[ing] that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person does not have." As well as a host of other no-no’s. These are all restraint’s on speech. The point being, twitter can’t publish one set of rules and then play by another.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Which is unconstitutional.
There is no "equal access", there is equal time and is specifically for broadcast mediums to offer up an equal amount to time to each candidate. If they don’t offer anything, it’s still equal time. And equal time doesn’t make sense when talking about media that’s not broadcast.
The above examples are kind of irrelevant to social media since they all relate to public streets/parks although I see where you are going with the argument. If you want to apply "content neutral" regulation on social media, you also have to prove that people have no other way to be heard than on social media – since that was your original context for bringing up "content neutral".
Kind of, but it’s all related to commerce and deceptive practices that harms consumers and/or competitors. Using the UDTPA as a gotcha for actions companies take that weren’t specifically stated in their TOS is kind of the assholes argument, ie if it’s not explicitly forbidden an asshole will find a way to misuse it. Regardless, if you have a bone to pick with how Twitter enforces their TOS, do provide examples (tweets and what twitter did) where you think they have gone wrong.
Re: Re: Re:6
The Florida state government can’t force Twitter to host any speech published by Florida politicians any more than the federal government can force Twitter to host the speech of the sitting POTUS. This law compelling a forced association between Twitter and Floridian politicians will be found unconstitutional in short order.
The law infringes not upon the right of free speech, but the right of association. The government generally cannot compel association — a private person/entity will always have the right to decide who/what they will associate with for themselves. (Anti-discrimination ordinances are an exception, but those are based on who a person is rather than the speech they espouse.)
A government entity within the United States, at any level of government, can’t require a open-to-the-public privately owned space to host third-party speech — even when that speech comes from a politician. To say otherwise would be to upend the First Amendment.
I repeat: One person says gay people should have all the same civil rights as straight people. Another person says gay people are abominations who should be “cured” of their “disease” before they kickstart the apocalypse by merely existing. Under “content neutral” laws, Twitter would have to host both forms of speech — even if it didn’t want to host the bigoted bullshit — or face some form of punishment for its refusal to associate with bigotry.
Would you mind explaining how this outcome can still work under the idea that the people who own and operate Twitter have the right to decide what speech Twitter will and won’t associate itself with?
Those “restraints” deal with commercial speech (e.g., marketing). They don’t say that Twitter must host speech its owners/operators otherwise don’t want on Twitter servers. No law says that because no law can say that because to upend that principle is to upend the First Amendment (as well as private property rights) for the sake of some asshole who wants a right (“free reach”) they don’t have and can’t give themselves.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
This really shouldn’t need to be repeated so often, but what the hell. The government and those working for it are bound by the first amendment, non-government individuals/parties are not. All Knight v Trump ruled was that if a politician uses an account for official government business then they are bound by the first amendment regarding interactions with the public and the account, and can’t just block people on a whim. This does not mean that private platforms are in any way obligated to provide politicians with an account or allow them to keep an account just because they are using it for official business, merely that the government actor is limited in how they can treat those that interact with the account.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
But Twitter did give Trump a pass on almost everything he posted while he was president.
I seem to remember an experiment where someone created an account that retweeted everything Trump said verbatim and it was shut down in less than 8 hours.
The person who created the account said "I’m surprised it took that long"
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"This test proves Jack ain’t lying—Twitter treats Trump differently [UPDATED]
Repeating a call to shoot looters got @SuspendThePres a visit from the banhammer."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/06/bot-banned-from-twitter-for-repeating-trumps-tweets-verbatim/
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
First rule of tiger riding, figure out how you are going to get off before getting on. Banning Trump would have been jumping on a Tiger.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Naw, banning Trump is saying, "We’ve had enough of giving this dumbfuck favoritism and we are banning him."
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
They’d already jumped on the tiger by giving him and other politicians special exceptions from the rules, unless they planned on ignoring his rule breaking forever they were eventually going to have to boot him for violating their rules and the longer they looked the other way the larger the backlash was going to be as he and his cultists became accustomed to the idea that the rules didn’t apply to him, so the smarter move would have been to show him the door as soon as the violations started coming to minimize the backlash.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Which I’d argue was a terrible move on their part as it made clear that those in power are above the rules and we can all see how well that worked out. What they should have done is give him whatever warnings were warranted by the system and then given him the boot when those warnings were ignored, making clear which rules he broke to face that consequence.
Yes, they did indeed give him special treatment my point however is that they had the choice to do so, as while a politician who uses their account for official business is then bound by the first amendment in how that account is now treated the platform hosting the account is not similarly bound, and they can still show the politician the door at their discretion.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"Normally, I’d ask you to gather all seven Dragon Balls…"
Wait, one has to either locate 3,5 mythical beasts and cut their nads off or spend fifty episodes getting to every fight big enough for one to show up before you can appear?
No wonder dragons are extinct and the dragonball series has gone on forever…
Re: Re: Re:
No government official, at any level, can force a social media service to host speech that said service doesn’t want to host. But if you still believe otherwise, I do have One Simple Question for you.
Assume for a moment that you run a small Mastodon instance. Yes or no: Should the government have the absolute right to make your instance host offensive-yet-legally protected speech that you don’t want hosted on/associated with your instance? Answer directly and on-point; deflecting with “but my instance wouldn’t as big as Twitter” or other such off-topic bullshit will not be considered an answer.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
They can and have compelled "speech" before. Hell, just look at some of the cases requiring that company’s publish notifications, OHSA signs, 2257 requirements, COPPA, NY’s requirement to post and display leadsonline.com information for any resale equipment. So, so many other examples.
Now, I’m not a pro-big government person, so personally, no, I don’t think they should be that involved in a person’s life. Neither do I think they should be able to harass a baker for years because he doesn’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding.
But, I’m telling you the current state of free speech jurisprudence. The Florida Law doesn’t discriminate based on the view-point of the speech (republican/democrat/etc.), merely the type (political). That means that it is at worst a content-based speech restriction on social media companies. If the court’s determine that, they can use the "strict scrutinity" test to determine if it is allowable or not. But the court’s may even determine it is merely restricting commercial speech of a corporation (lowest degree of protection) in favor of personal political speech (given highest degree of protection) and apply an even less rigorous test that strict scrutiny.
It’s not nearly as clear cut as you think it is.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
This is the dumbest example I’ve heard someone try. The government requiring a company to adhere to safety regulations & display their compliance is somehow exactly the same as forcing a social media company to allow a politician to proclaim that non-whites are abominations who don’t deserve rights. What in the actual fuck are you on?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Well, this is a complicated question.
From a Fifth Amendment takings perspective, obviously, the answer is in the negative. It would be taking some of my property, virtual or real, and I would be entitled to compensation. Even then, Kelo notwithstanding, in many states, there would have to be a public purpose to the requirement that my property be taken to host offensive speech.
On the other hand, from a First Amendment speech perspective, clearly, the answer is in the negative. Requiring me to publish offensive material is contrary to the standard understanding of freedom of the press.
There is still the First Amendment associational perspective. There, the answer would be in the negative because I cannot be required to associate with obnoxious twits, and forcing me to permit them to mingle with my preferred group on my property would be contrary to freedom of association.
So it is not a simple yes/no question. There are options as to how you look at it. It might be better viewed as a no/hell_no/no_way question. None of this is intended to suggest that Ron DeSantis is not a goof, of course.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Getting out the flamethrower.
OK, you got me.
Re: Re: Re:3
Excellent answer. ????
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"So it is not a simple yes/no question. There are options as to how you look at it. It might be better viewed as a no/hell_no/no_way question."
Good sir, I perused your amicus on the matter and take my hat off in open admiration of your succinct condensation of this complex topic.
I must confess to some confusion as to why "no way" would ever be used in favor of "hell, no" however.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I can say “no way” in court.
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
"Florida can set the requirements for a corporation doing business in its state."
Sure they can, right up to the point where they smack into federal law and the Constitution, and then they can’t. Not rocket science.
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Actually, the government does this all the time.
Not when it’s about speech, or when it’s an issue that federal law pre-empts states from acting.
It’s called regulation.
Yes, and it’s forbidden by the Constitution to regulate speech. Which is what this does.
Just ask cable companies about the equal opportunity act that has been in effect since the 1930s.
Cable regulations are not about speech.
Florida can set the requirements for a corporation doing business in its state.
Yes. Except if it violates the Constitution. Which this does.
Also, aren’t the libs the ones that don’t value free speech anyway and want to censor people?
No. Extremists from both parties claim the other side doesn’t value free speech. And idiots from both parties freak out about things without understanding it. But, generally speaking, the urge to censor is not partisan in any way. It’s just stupid people. And that includes anyone who supports this bill.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Ha! Yeah. People have been arguing that for a long time re the right to freedom of religion, speech, and right to bear arms, all of which are not supposed to be infringed. The reality is that we recognize a whole heck of a lot of encumbrances on rights that are constitutionally not supposed to be there according to the plain wording. You aren’t going to win with that argument. Here’s the general current tests for restrains on speech:
… for regulations of free speech in a public forum or on individual private property, the Court uses strict scrutiny for con-tent-based regulations of speech and intermediate review for content-neutral regulations. … for regulations of speech in a government-owned, non-public forum, or speech supported by government grants or subsidies, the Court uses strict scrutiny for view-point discrimination, and “reasonableness” balancing for subject-matter and content-neutral regulations. In some cases, certain kinds of speech do not trigger free speech protection at all. … this includes cases of government speech or regulations of alleged symbolic speech that are viewed as involving conduct only. Other kinds of speech, like advocacy of illegal conduct, fighting words,or obscenity, get limited free speech protection: strict scrutiny for view-point discrimination, but otherwise no free speech review … content-based regulations of certain kinds of speech in a public forum trigger less than strict scrutiny re-view. This can involve regulations of commercial speech, speech by government employees on matters of public concern, or alleged tortious speech, such as defamation or invasion of privacy, among others.
https://www.elon.edu/u/law/wp-content/uploads/sites/996/2019/07/Kelso.pdf
Re: Re: Re:3
And your point here is…what, exactly? That there are limits of “free speech”? Try telling us something we don’t know.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Apparently a lot of people on here don’t know that.
Just look at Mike Masnick that I am directly replying to: "Yes, and it’s forbidden by the Constitution to regulate speech. Which is what this does."
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
There is a very short list of exceptions to the 1st Amendment. Florida’s law does not come anywhere close to fitting in them. Saying that the 1st Amendment has some exceptions, as you did, is meaningless fluff, when what Florida is trying to regulate CLEARLY falls outside of those limits.
And, no, just because there are some exceptions it does not mean that this exception will magically be created. Note that the Supreme Court has directly refused to expand the categories of unprotected speech for about 50 or so years, despite many opportunities to do so. And, on this point specifically, just two years ago Justice Kavanaugh wrote an opinion making it abundantly clear that you could not regulate speech on private social media platforms.
So, yes, I stand by my statement, and it is clear you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
This isn’t "expand[ing] the categories of unprotected free speech." It is protecting political speech (given the highest protection) in a public forum operated by a commercial company (commercial speech – lowest protection) and requiring consumer transparency. And the fact that you have to curse means you lose. It’s like having to resort to a "your mom" comment. It shows the weakness of your reply.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
"Person A: [bigoted statement]
Person B: The fuck?
Person C: Now, now, let’s have civility.
Dear C: You came in one statement too late."
-John Scalzi
https://twitter.com/scalzi/status/502085062540939264
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Oh, there it is! The "you said the magic word that means I win" gotcha.
Guess what? All that shows is that you don’t have a leg to stand on. You’re throwing out this made-up schoolyard taunt of a "rule" to proclaim victory so you don’t have to actually provide rational rebuttals to anyone anymore, and feel smug about it.
You’ve resorted to the absolute weakest of retorts, one which disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again.
See how that works? Anyone can proclaim a nonexistent win condition and it’s absolutely meaningless! Try actually supporting your argument instead of this dumbass "I’m taking my ball and going home, that means I win" tactic.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
This isn’t "expand[ing] the categories of unprotected free speech."
Yes, it is. It’s saying that the right of free association — which is a part of the 1st Amendment does not apply to a certain class of speech. To do that you need to change the categories of what’s unprotected by the 1st Amendment.
It is protecting political speech (given the highest protection) in a public forum operated by a commercial company (commercial speech – lowest protection) and requiring consumer transparency.
That’s… not how any of this works.
And the fact that you have to curse means you lose.
No. It means I’m calling your dumb fucking idea a dumb fucking idea. Don’t like it? Fuck off.
It shows the weakness of your reply.
No, it shows that I think you’re an ignorant fucking fool.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"That there are limits of “free speech”? Try telling us something we don’t know."
No, just that as is typical for Baghdad Bob’s low-grade bullshit that even when he can be arsed to produce a wordwall of nonsense to build around his "argument" all he ends up saying "Context and nuance does not exist".
If this argument was about the right of self-defense he’d be arguing that since you’re allowed to kill people he should get off scot free if he shot people from on top of a water tower.
Re: Re: Re:2 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Based on the “Disney” exception, it may very well be that the legislature are not all stupid. They may simply be coin-operated. There has been a large flashing virtual Livendco sign over the members’ entrance to the new capitol at least since it opened.
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Equal opportunity to do what…. screw over the citizenry with their monopolistic power?
And for the record, cable companies didn’t come into existence until 1950. Look it up. (Two of them, on opposite sides of the country. Timelines seem to be in disagreement as to the exact dates, but 1950 is the agreed-upon Year 1 for the cable industry.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Your comments make no sense. I said they have been having to operate under a law that has been on the books since the 1930’s. It applied to radio broadcast first, but then to television broadcasts. What about it applying to cable companies and being enacted in the 1930’s doesn’t make sense to you?
Re: Re: Re:3 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Are you referring to the Fairness Doctrine? Because it was thrown out in 1987, so you’re extremely uninformed if you’re claiming it applies to anyone now.
Oh, and it was never a law. It was just FCC policy. So you’re doubly-wrong on that.
Re: Re: Re:3 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
I can’t be sure that you’re the same AC as my response was directed towards, but for the record, I’ll quote again:
In that sentence, I see the phrases "cable companies" and "equal opportunity" with only two words between them, and no commas. Just above me, Bluegrass Geek has correctly named the policy you were reaching for, but I took the "opportunity" to jab my spear at cable companies screwing their customers, almost since Day 1 of their collective existence.
And for the record… I do wish that the Fairness doctrine could be enshrined in law, but for the life of me, the Supremes (of 1987) were correct – it was an overreach of the FCC to impose such a regimen on broadcasters, even in the name of public service. In short, it flew in the face of 1A, a situation we’re seeing all over again today, but with the substitution of "social media" for "broadcasters".
And finally, you have one more problem with your pleading – the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable companies. It was intended for broadcasters in the literal sense, i.e. those who sent out signals Over The Air for free, the source of those signals being remunerated by advertising. When cable companies started, they were on a subscription model – the viewer paid out of his/her pocket. (And advertising was supposed to be unnecessary. HAH! That didn’t last long, did it.) The difference is (or so the thinking went at the time), broadcasters aren’t so all encompassing in their reach, either geographically or politically speaking. But cable companies could definitely reach across the country, or even across the planet. So, since an OTA viewer can only be exposed to viewpoints of local broadcasters, they were "locked in", which is what gave rise to the Fairness Doctrine. For cable companies, a viewer could pick and choose what he or she liked, so they could easily find stations tailored to their desires – local lock-in was not an issue, insofar as the FCC was concerned.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
It’s like saying the DMCA (enacted in 1998) doesn’t apply to Twitter (founded 2006) because it was there before Twitter.
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Unh-huh. . .
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/495788-the-dangerous-liberal-ideas-for-censorship-in-the-united-states
Re: Re: Re:3 You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Unlike a gaslighting opinion piece partisanly playing fast and loose with logic, causality, and the English language, I was talking about the real world – where the biggest threat of censorship comes from the extreme-right-wing false narrative spread by insurrectionists like Hawley and Cruz, falsely defining the exercise of speech as "censorship" and that their bills to institute facsist censorship regimes (like the FL law) are somehow protecting free speech by violating the Constitution.
Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Who are the ones constantly pushing against positive media representation of minorities? Isn’t the libs. Who spent much of the past half decade screeching because black athletes protest police brutality? Not the libs. Who are the ones keeping lists of professors they deem too liberal, targeting them for harassment? Not the libs. Who are attacking entire fields of academia because they discuss racism and oppression? Not the libs. Who tries to boycott an entire country for not supporting an illegal war? Not the libs. Who’ve organised letter writing campaigns and protests to attack social progress in pop culture as long as pop culture has been a thing? Not the libs. Who have passed laws making it illegal for the government to hire people for supporting boycotts of israel? Not the libs. Freedom fries? Not the libs…
Conservatives constantly use any power they get to attack, silence and disenfranchise their opponents, all the while screaming about how it’s the libs silencing them as they can’t go as far as they’d like.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Facebook cannot silence you because it cannot stop you speaking out on other platforms. Just because the platforms that you can speak on are not popular indicates that the speech that they carry is often offensive to people. So long as you have any platform that you can speak on, you are taking part in the public conversation, as some on those platforms will summarise you words, and let other know what is being said on those platforms.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
It clearly within the law that they can do so. This law that was passed violates the First Amendment rights of social media companies.
It will be challenged by literally everyone because its easily a win for them. Won’t even take that long to die. Companies are safe to ignore this shit.
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too
Normally, if a government were to use secret algorithms against its citizens to dole out punishment
What would you actually do with the ‘secret algorithms’ if you had them? It’s not like any of you fuckers can math. Hell, you have a problem with people fucking counting. What in the fuck would you do with something you can’t use your fingers & toes to figure out?
And what makes you think it’s some ‘secret algorithm’ as opposed to an ‘asshole detector?’ I mean, you’re never going to find resolution when you assume it’s a plot against you, as opposed to the possibility that you’re just an asshole. Have you ever even considered that any material that has been taken down had been taken down because a member of your contacts reported you for (wait for it…) being an asshole? I’m guessing when it comes time to put up or shut up when the question of ‘what exactly was taken down?’ comes up, that’s why you assholes are so quiet.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
You know, kids, IF the tide reverses, YOU will be targets!
And you’ve disarmed yourselves by okaying censoring of "crazies" and "insurrectionists" — needs only for those labels be applied to you.
Oh, and you cannot trust your new tech overlords, either! Their plans don’t include you, not even YOU, Maz, just another kibitzer.
Authoritarians are NOT ideologues. They’ll censor anyone, just for fun.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: You know, kids, IF the tide reverses, YOU will be targets!
A bit of trouble at first getting in today, had to "submit" a couple dozen times, then obviously allowed. Maz is desperate for comments, only reason, as first got "Techdirt not accepting proxy", apparently from Cloudflap.
Re: Re: Re:
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each comment he’d made
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
Re: You know, kids, IF the tide reverses, YOU will be targets!
Oh! I truly did not know that Congress invited kibitzers to testify on matters such as these at bar!
That causes me to wonder though, just how many readers here have been requested/summoned to testify at a hearing before any Congressional committee or sub-committee…. Perhaps you, 100 percenter, have you had the opportunity to speak, in public, in front of several Congress persons at the same time, mmmmmmm?
Would it be cheaper to buy a theme park than pay the legal fight
I know that we are all better off if this law is struck down in the courts, but it seems to me that Twitter and Facebook could easily afford to buy a small theme park just to prove how ridiculous this law is.
Re: 'That clause is only for companies we like that own us!'
Whether it would be cheaper or not it would certainly be funnier, as watching the desperate scramble to exempt them from that clause in the law after the fact would be all sorts of entertaining.
Re: Re: 'That clause is only for companies we like that own us!'
Possible attractions:
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t forget the Gaslight Express, set to launch next January 6th!
Re: Re: Re: 'That clause is only for companies we like that own us!'
And a coming attraction:
The Hall Of Trump!
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The joke is that nothing will come of it after four years of supposed construction.
Re: Would it be cheaper to buy a theme park than pay the legal f
We’ll have to decide what counts as a theme park next.
Re: Would it be cheaper to buy a theme park than pay the legal f
In a science fiction story from my youth there was a spaceman that was fighting the good fight, went to a disputed star system and set up a one man spy site inside a comet/asteroid/small something or other.
Took him to trial for spying. His reply: I wasn’t spying, I was establishing a colony.
Colony being the trigger, as that was the other side’s justification for occupying a different system.
How big is a theme park?
I’m sure I could set one up in a parking spot. They log in to the special website and see the entire theme. Outside of the actual "theme park", its just a normal social media site, raking in cash, digging for big data, and ML additional levels of useless information to make the big bucks.
Bonus: Our Theme Park has the highest occupancy numbers for any such park in the country.
Re: Would it be cheaper to buy a theme park than pay the legal f
It may not be cheaper, but it would sure be the best snark ever if T and Fb were to buy all of the theme parks, and then close them down. Now who has to toe the line?
Can't wait to visit "Googleland"!
I’m already planning a Florida vacation to visit "Googleland"! Should be great, with a search window just past the entrance gates to take me wherever I want to go.
Re: Can't wait to visit "Googleland"!
You’ll probably end up sick after the first hundred cookies.
"Every day, they act as the proverbial Big Brother, and 2021 looks an awful lot like the fictitious 1984."
Mmmm irony… tasty tasty irony.
This is the man who told people to not believe their own eyes or ears but only to listen to Big Pumpkin right?
This is the man who sent his paramilitary force to harass & intimidate someone who spoke truth?
This is the man responsible for a huge number of deaths during his entire tenure & then threatened to close a vaccination site if they weren’t nice to him?
This is the man who killed his citizens to appease Big Pumpkin pretending the pandemic was just an evil Soros plot?
This is the man who allowed multiple super spreader events because the economy mattered more than lives?
Is he a cop?
They are the only ones who can willfully kill this many people and not get charged.
If you lie to citizens & it leads to their death…. that should be a crime right?
I'm running as the antifa candidate
I’m moving to Florida and running as the antifa candidate for every political office I can find.
theme parks
I look forward to visiting Twitter Gardens & Facebookland in the near future.
Communist
Forcing outlets to host government speech is straight authoritarian communism. Why is desantis embracing hard left policy? Why does he hate the Constitution.
Re: Communist
Because he’s looking through #45’s rose-colored glass belly button, and it’s distorting his vision. Something fierce, I might add.
Before Trump I never knew how cowardly Republicans are. And, apparently, cowardice has become the overriding character trait of conservatives. Their fear of losing–fear even of a fair fight–has made them traitors to everything America has traditionally stood for–even when the reality fell short of the dream. To quote MAGA-moron: sad, so sad.
Knight v. Trump is going to be tested.
Re: Re:
So some more idiots can be reminded again that if you don’t like being constrained by the first amendment don’t work for the government, because that’s all that one really said, that if you work for the government and use your social media account for official government business the first amendment applies to you/that account and you can’t just block people because you don’t like them.
Yeah, I don’t see that one being overturned any time soon as you’d need to toss or seriously change the legal interpretation of the first amendment beforehand.
Also, if a Nazi or child molester wants to file two pieces of paper with the state positively linking their legal name with a twitter account to say crazy shit, I’m ok with that. We’d positively know who to watch out for and not do business/associate with.
Re: Re:
Most of them hold office and have an (R) after their name.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Dunno about that. It appears that a lot of people with (D)s after their name are tweeting "Uncle Tim" and "Hitler was right" lately.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/twitter-removes-uncle-tim-from-trending-topics-after-senator-scott-attacked-over-biden-rebuttal-speech/ar-BB1gbJod
https://nypost.com/2021/05/24/17000-tweet-hitler-was-right-and-big-tech-barely-reacts/
Love for a lot of those people to be unmasked.
… well? Which is it? Partisan agendas, or dissent? For it to be partisan, there has to be an opposing party i.e. dissent.
We’re living in George Orwell’s Animal Crossing.
In a state where so much is wrong, DeSantis is the absolute worst thing. He’s done more damage to the state than any hurricane ever has.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Totally censorious
I completely agree. Not allowing people to kick others off of their platform or prevent them from voicing their opinions based on their identity is completely censoring the opinions of the people who have complete control of the forum or platform. Except when blacks and women weren’t allowed to vote, when gays weren’t allowed to force a company to bake cakes for them displaying a message they didn’t agree with,when white men didn’t allow others to speak in public forae or when communist college students weren’t allowed to advocate for communism in colleges that supported capitalism. In those cases,the platforms and forae had to be sued or forced by the federal government to allow speech they didn’t agree with,and it was not censorious,because it was a group of people whoe we like not being allowed to speak. We’re not looking to allow landlords to prevent BLM supporters or antifa from renting their properties or anything like that. What we want is for multibillion dollar international corporations to be able to silence or prevent from speaking about 70 million Americans who have opinions we DON’T like, so that we can peacefully uphold and practice democracy with only the people who agree with us.
Re: Totally censorious
What we want is for the constitution and private property rights to be respected.
Re: Totally censorious
What we want is for multibillion dollar international corporations to be able to silence or prevent from speaking about 70 million Americans who have opinions we DON’T like, so that we can peacefully uphold and practice democracy with only the people who agree with us.
Uh-huh.
What you want is for multibillion dollar international corporations to be able to force an audience to listen to about 70 million Americans who have opinions that are batshit crazy, despite thinking that they’re assholes.
Sorry pal. You’re not being censored because of your political views. You’re being kicked out because you’re assholes. If you’d like that to stop, the solution is to either fuck off and go somewhere else or stop being an asshole. It isn’t difficult. It just means you have to recognize that the problem is you.
If that hurts your feelings, believe me, I don’t care. You reap what you sow – so get over it, snowflake. Fuck your feelings. Sound familiar?
Re:
Everyone else can pick your other bullshit apart, but I want to focus on one thing:
Now, can you spot the mistake you’ve made?
I’ll give you a second to figure it out. Feel free to Google “Masterpiece Cakeshop” if you need a hint.
…
…
…okay, time’s up! Your mistake was your entire assertion.
Masterpiece Cakeshop lost the anti-discrimination lawsuit filed against it at every level but the Supreme Court on the merits. (SCOTUS kicked it back on a technicality while refusing to rule on the merits, the cowards.) In that case, the cakeshop refused to sell even a basic wedding cake — an item offered to the general public — to a gay couple. The would-be customers never got as far as saying how they wanted the cake decorated because they were never able to purchase a wedding cake in the first place.
When a business opens its doors to the public, it must offer to all customers equal access to the same “menu” (e.g., services, items). That business doesn’t get to decide who makes up “the public”. It has to operate under all applicable laws — including non-discrimination ordinances. For example: A public-facing meat shop can’t offer kosher meat only to Jewish customers. That said, the meat shop is under no obligation to sell kosher meat even if a Jewish customer asks for it.
Your mistake — which is the same mistake every anti-queer bigot makes when talking about the Masterpiece case — was believing the courts forced the bakery to both bake a cake for the would-be customers and decorate said cake per the wishes of that couple. At no point in the case did any court force Masterpiece to decorate a wedding cake with pro-gay messaging. At no point in the case did any court force Masterpiece to bake a wedding cake for a gay customer. (And the bakery voluntarily stopped selling wedding cakes to avoid running afoul of the law again.) Your entire assertion rests on a lie spread by bigots who want paint queer people as Rainbow Fascists who are using the law to force Christian Americans — the most oppressed majority in the history of the world~! — into showing support for queer people. That you’ve bought into the lie is…telling.
No one can compel a bakery, a T-shirt printer, or any other business to print speech with which that business doesn’t want to associate — regardless of the political leanings of the business or the would-be customer. I wouldn’t want an anti-gay baker forced to make a cake with pro-gay messaging any more than I would want a pro-gay baker forced to make a cake with anti-gay messaging.
This has been an educational moment for you. Learn something from it.
Re: Totally censorious
A single or few companies cannot silence people, as they can use alternative sites to publish their speech. Also, the idea that all views should be allowed on a single platform is something that political parties do not support or do. A political conversation can be posts on one site, and post arguing against on a different site, and remain available for people who want to decide which party to support.
Also, given the reasons why people ate thrown off of the popular platforms, their real complaint is not that they can’t be heard, but rather than cannot get in the face of those that they wish to denigrate, and tell them how evil, or wrong they are.
So, if I’m in my bunker building my latest web site kinder.dot.wunderbar – where I’ve put a lot of work in to tapping the underserved nazi pedophile child molester market with the same sort of cynical marketing that pinkwashing corporations have been directing against women, LGBTQ and every other niche for years – and someone barges in to spam adverts for a tacky Florida theme park that feeds little children to alligators – shouldn’t I be free to moderate or block this spam from my own site?
Re: Re:
You make it sound as though that is a bad thing.
Re: Re: Re:
Won’t somebody please think of the alligators! They’ll get fat and constipated due to the poor diet!
Cake and conversation
Why should I have to allow you free speech in my living room when I don’t have to bake you cake in my bakery?
So, a laughingstock just proved they are also a tech laughingstock? And this is news because…?