Another Day, Another Blatant Attack On The 1st Amendment From The Florida GOP
from the papers-please dept
I keep hearing people pretend that the GOP in general, and Florida GOPers more specifically, and Governor Ron DeSantis most specifically, are fighting for “free speech,” when they continually seem to push blatantly unconstitutional legislation designed to attack free speech and the 1st Amendment in a way that keeps getting Florida shot down in court by judges (while wasting tons of taxpayer money).
But they just don’t stop. The latest is a laughably unconstitutional bill from Florida Senator Jason Brodeur, SB 1316, that violates the 1st Amendment in so many different ways.
The bill has a section on “blogger registration and reporting.” Basically, any blogger reporting on the Florida government in a professional (paid) capacity has to register with the government and file “monthly reports” on who is paying them and how much they’re being paid.
286.31 Blogger registration and reporting.—
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Blog” means a website or webpage that hosts any blogger and is frequently updated with opinion, commentary, or business content. The term does not include the website of a newspaper or other similar publication.
(b) “Blogger” means any person as defined in s. 1.01(3) that submits a blog post to a blog which is subsequently published.
(c) “Blog post” is an individual webpage on a blog which contains an article, a story, or a series of stories.
(d) “Compensation” includes anything of value provided to a blogger in exchange for a blog post or series of blog posts. If not provided in currency, it must be the fair-market value of the item or service exchanged.
(e) “Elected state officer” means the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature.
(f) “Office” means, in the context of a blog post about a member of the Legislature, the Office of Legislative Services or, in the context of a blog post about a member of the executive branch, the Commission on Ethics, as applicable.(2) If a blogger posts to a blog about an elected state officer and receives, or will receive, compensation for that post, the blogger must register with the appropriate office, as identified in paragraph (1)(f), within 5 days after the first post by the blogger which mentions an elected state officer.
(3)(a) Upon registering with the appropriate office, a blogger must file monthly reports on the 10th day following the end of each calendar month from the time a blog post is added to the blog, except that, if the 10th day following the end of a calendar month occurs on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the report must be filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
(b) If the blogger does not have a blog post on a blog during a given month, the monthly report for that month does not need to be filed.
(c) The blogger must file reports with the appropriate office using the electronic filing system:1. As provided in s. 11.0455 if the blog post concerns an elected member of the Legislature; or
2. As provided in s. 112.32155 if the blog post concerns an officer of the executive branch.(d) The reports must include all of the following:
1. The individual or entity that compensated the blogger for the blog post.
2. The amount of compensation received from the individual or entity, regardless of how the compensation was structured.a. The amount must be rounded to the nearest $10 increment.
b. If the compensation is for a series of blog posts or for a defined period of time, the blogger must disclose the total amount to be received upon the first blog post being published. Thereafter, the blogger must disclose the date or dates additional compensation is received, if any, for the series of blog posts.3. The date the blog post was published. If the blog post is part of a series, the date each blog post is published must be included in the applicable report. 4. The website and website address where the blog post can be found.
This is… not how any of this works. The government cannot require “journalists” to register. They especially cannot have this registration only apply to journalists writing about elected officials. The government cannot demand they file monthly reports. The government cannot demand they reveal who is paying them or how much. The whole thing is nothing but blatant journalist intimidation, and clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.
But, of course, Brodeur (and DeSantis) don’t care one bit about free speech or the 1st Amendment. They care about culture wars and setting up the media that is exposing their nonsense as “the enemy.” And throwing the 1st Amendment in the trash and lighting it on fire while dancing around the bonfire destroying free speech seems to be the method they’ve taken.
That doesn’t change the facts, of course. This is a blatant attack on free speech, the 1st Amendment, and a free press. I am sure that we will have the usual crew of commenters who have been pretending for months that they support free speech and will somehow twist themselves around to pretend that this is not an attack on free speech. Just think how pathetic that is: pretending to be a free speech warrior while cheering on the government spitting on the 1st Amendment.
Filed Under: bloggers, florida, free speech, jason brodeur, journalists, registration, ron desantis, sb 1316
Comments on “Another Day, Another Blatant Attack On The 1st Amendment From The Florida GOP”
And it looks like Florida is also having a “Brah” moment too.
The Florida GOP Seems Confused
I thought they were arguing that we had a First Amendment right to see the President’s son’s penis.
Then they argue that we don’t have a First Amendment right to mock a kid wearing a red hat.
Now they’re arguing that bloggers don’t have a First Amendment right to be anonymous.
Get it together, Florida.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
You don’t have a 1A right to claim the kid in the red hat was being aggressive to the old guy when the reverse is true, and in fact quite a few publications had to pay (probably) several million dollars over that.
Because 1A and defamation law are largely separate things. Which Masnick is apparently too dumb to realize.
Re: Re:
Rewriting history again, are you, Matthew?
Sandmann lost all of his cases that reached a judgment.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/04/nick-sandmann-who-we-were-told-would-be-rich-beyond-belief-from-all-the-media-companies-he-sued-loses-basically-all-of-his-cases/
A few companies paid out nuisance fees to settle because it was cheaper than fighting. And we know this because his lawyer flipped out and threatened to sue for breaking the “confidentiality order” on the case when a reporter guessed that the settlement fee was around $25k, basically confirming the amount that they paid.
And why did those cases get dismissed Matthew? Because as the court noted “those statements are generally protected by the First Amendment.” Your recent insistence that defamation law and the 1st Amendment are unrelated is laughably stupid, as any one who knows anything about this (including the judge overseeing these cases) could tell you.
So, once again, Matthew, you are wrong about everything. And it’s hilarious to see how bad you are at all of this.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, dumbass, the people who thought they were likely to lose settled. It doesn’t matter that he lost some cases when the much bigger cases settled. And no, it wasn’t “$25k” and nothing was confirmed there you’re just making shit up.
….not according to the actual constitution. It’s extrapolations and made up protections started in the Warren court. Y’know, kinda like the idea that killing a baby is protected by “privacy”. Y’know which also need to be overturned as the bullshit they are.
You’re just lying, Masnick, it’s sad.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s not how it works. And, yes, $25k was confirmed BY SANDMANN’s lawyer when he publicly claimed that the statement about it violated a confidentiality clause. If the number was false, it couldn’t have violated that clause. It would only violate it if (1) the reporter knew about it and (2) the number was accurate.
I’m sorry that your boy hired a dumb lawyer who revealed the “confidential” nuisance settlement, but he did.
And, no it wasn’t “the much bigger cases” that settled. The WaPo case that settled, the judge had already rejected nearly every claim and just left one single claim to move forward. It’s just that going through the process to try that one single claim would like runs hundreds of thousands of dollars, so if an offer comes up to settle for $25k or so, you take it.
Dude, you are so fucking out of your depth it’s not even funny. You have zero knowledge or experience about this, but go talk to literally any 1st Amendment lawyer and they’ll laugh you out of their office when you claim that defamation law has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment is what creates the contours of defamation law. And that predated the Warren Court (by a lot!).
What’s sad is you being so pathetically stubborn and ignorant that when someone who actually knows shit tells you you’re full of shit, you accuse them of “lying.”
I’m not lying. I’m not even just disagreeing with your silly opinions. I’m telling you facts. And you’re too ignorant and stubborn to learn. Typical.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
No, it wasn’t.
Made up bullshit that has nothing to do with anything.
You don’t know anything. You sure do write a lot, though. That’s…not actually good.
Re: Re: Re:4
Always projection with you fuckers!
Re: Re: Re:4
Feel free to provide any kind of evidence.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, Mike presented evidence that it was, and you have done nothing to even try to refute it. So, do you have anything besides “Nuh-uh!”?
Re: Re: Re:2 Matthew M Bennett - imaginary arguements
And no, it wasn’t “$25k” and nothing was confirmed there you’re just making shit up.
The companies Sandmann sued are publicly traded. They are required to make SEC filings, one, called a 10Q. In those filings, available to the general public no less, are most broadly discussed tiny, irrelevant things like, oh, ownership changes or significant obstacles to future operations. Now, they may not discuss the specific reason of a down side, but it will be discussed, even if only in circumlocutions.
If Sandmann had won anything significant, there would have to be ownership changes recorded and/or issues reported if for no other reason than to generate cash to satisfy the judgement or the risk assessment requirements of the SEC.
Well, that didn’t happen. Therefore the settlements were, as is common, nuisance settlements. EG: “Here’s a nickle kid, now go pound sand.”
Interesting factoid: A multi-national I worked for in the late 1970’s would settle any suit under $50,000 simply because it would cost more than that to fight it. After about the forth time someone dipped that well, they’d spring into action and fight.
NB: $50,000 in 1970 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $385,000 today. So, as has been observed by Sandmann’s own representative, he only got $25K, then the nuisance was obviously judged to be quite minor.
Really, Mr. Bennett, if you’re going to call Mr. Masnick an idiot, we’re going to insist on your Bar Association number.
Re: Re:
Most news reports accurately reported that the kid was a part of a crowd that was jeering and standing in front of the guy’s way. By your own argument, you’re now defaming the older gentleman because he wasn’t being aggressive. He walked up and sang a song.
There’s a lot of weight hanging on that probably. Best estimates from experts is that he walked away with fuck off money, and not millions.
The first amendment already has exceptions for unprotected speech like defamation though, so when Mike says this violates the first amendment, he’s not saying defamation is legal. You’re fighting with a strawman. And the strawman is winning.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
No, they didn’t but no, not even that was true. The old man came up to them and was banging a drum in their faces cuz he didn’t like their attire.
No, best estimate was millions.
So you’re just unfamiliar with the other article, then.
Re: Re: Re:2
Show me which of the papers sued by Sandmann said anything other these facts: He was there, he was part of a crowd, and that crowd had a confrontation with a Native American man. And I’ll note that context in terms of the timing of what information was available when is important here:
Initial reporting was based on an incomplete video of the incident, so saying “they lied” when they didn’t have all the information would be you trying to bullshit your way through this point. Once a longer video of the incident came to light, outlets updated their reporting based on what they saw in that longer video.
Key word: “best”. And I’m sure the people who made that estimate had absolutely nothing whatsoever to gain from portraying Sandmann as a vindicated “pro-life” conservative martyr who stood up to Evil Mainstream Media Outlets~.
Re: Re: Re:2
Holy mind reading miracle, Batman! You know his motives and how they’re contrary to what he and others have said. Do you perform shows in Vegas? You could make some money off this trick.
Some Lawyers Think Covington Catholic’s Nick Sandmann Walked Away from Media Lawsuits with Peanuts
I’m familiar with the other article and your usual bullshit. The irony is that you bitch about “Masnick says ‘red team bad!’ and yet your entire schtick on this website is just ‘Masnick bad!'”
I know it’s useless to mention this since you’re either financially incentivized to post here or clinically diagnosable with a condition that compels you to seek negative attention, but you don’t have to read or respond to articles on this site. You’re not some brave knight fighting a dragon. You’re a troll spewing worthless bile.
When you criticize Mike for posting content you disagree with, you’re only insulting yourself by pointing out that you’re obsessed with responding to almost every article with seething vitriol. I will literally contribute a few bucks to a GoFundMe if you post a link to a campaign to get you some therapy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Just admit this is a political attack blog, not a tech blog.
This (proposed) law btw, actually is unconstitutional, and violates the 1A, but it also doesn’t have anything to do with DeSantis, does it? But you’re gonna link it to DeSantis cuz you’re a hard partisan and DeSantis the next, biggest threat to progressive’s (awful) goals.
DeSantis’s proposed law to make defamation law more clear and robust has very little to do with the 1A and is clearly consitituional but for a bit of judicial activism from the Warren court (of which there were many). But you’re gonna hate on it cuz again, whatever a liberal opposes must be labeled “nazi”. It also, notably, has nothing to do with THIS.
But none of those facts matter to you because this is about partisanship and politics to you, not the 1st amendment (which you don’t understand, even though you’ve probably given speeches on it, which is both hilarious and sad) and it barely has anything to do with tech.
This law is bad, the other fine, probably good, and it doesn’t matter cuz you might as well label all your articles “Red team bad”.
Re:
Just admit you’re a political attack dog, Matthew.
You already admitted you’re here to harass us, so I guess that anyone who isn’t on your side is automatically the enemy and must be harassed.
Re: Re: Words have consequences
Eh, I see his name on the comment, I burn the comment regardless of content.
He’s happy to post outrageous things … (“for the clicks”)
… and not provide evidence about them (because people debunk them).
So yeah. He could say “I repent my Musk fanboyism” and I’d still burn him. You make a rep, you gotta live with it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
As has been pointed out many times, the only lengthy discussions on TechDirt involve flagged posts, so the only thing you’re accomplishing is demonstrating your own petulance.
Re: Fairly Sure
Your smoking something, Techdirt will call out anyone being dumb. Republicans as a whole tend to do more dumb things. Off the top of my head I can call out Inbox Spam, Trump asking for donations for someone else then giving 90% to himself, and one guy saying so many lies that his own party wont talk to him, but he keeps his job somehow.
Dems are not immune to this stuff, I can point to countless bills passed through democratic held congress that are stupid, not well thought out, or actively hurt people. I can also call out Dems who have done bad things, or the fact that Biden had some classified docs that were not kept safe. But you know what, Dems try to fix stuff, or ask members to resign if they did something awful or even just look bad.
Trump bad man not because I have an axe to grind, but because he honestly wastes money by filing unlimited insane lawsuits against rivals, did not own up after being asked about classified docs, and broke almost every norm he could in a quest for personal power.
But honestly Post articles about Dems being dumb, Techdirt will post those too. Only you might find that the person in trouble might be quitting, not getting reelected, or going to jail.
Re:
Did any hear that??
Must have been those damn f-lies buzzing around stinking the place up again.
Re: Re:
You have it wrong, flied do not create a stink, but are attracted to the sting of rotting things, and you are the stink on this blog.
Re:
This story has to do with the Florida GOP. The most high-profile representative of that political group, at least as far as public officeholders go, is currently the governor of the state of Florida. Guess who that is!
That proposal has everything to do with the First Amendment because defamation law is one of the few exceptions to the First Amendment’s protections against government intrusion into speech. Whatever changes he wants to make to defamation law will have to take that into account.
A conservative is not necessarily a fascist—but fascists are almost always conservative.
Do you see Democrats passing laws that ban conservative-leaning/conservative-authored books from public/school libraries? Do you see Democrats passing laws that enforce gender-nonconforming dress codes? Do you see Democrats passing laws that force women to have abortions even if the pregnancy is wanted?
Because I see Republicans passing laws that ban pro-queer books from public/school libraries, enforce gender-conforming dress codes (i.e., ban public drag performances), and forcing women to carry pregnancies to term depending on where they live.
This is political and partisan whether you like it or not. Get used to it, sunshine.
This blog has openly criticized Democrat lawmakers in the past whenever they’ve proposed short-sighted anti-1A bullshit bills and come out against Section 230. That you see this blog as leaning “anti-Republican” is largely the fault of the GOP for doing that shit more often (and with far more openly fascist fervor) than the Democrats. The GOP is now the party of American fascism; Trump emboldened that evolution and DeSantis is taking it to its logical endgame. Don’t shit on Mike because the Republicans decided that queer people should be “othered” out of society and dissent against GOP leaders is tantamount to treason—he didn’t make any of them become Trumpists by writing about their bullshit.
Re: Re:
To be fair, we do see Democrats pushing laws to force websites to block and suppress various other content, including medical misinfo, hate speech, and content inappropriate for children — and doing so is also unconstitutional. So it’s not a partisan thing.
Both parties are bad when it comes to the 1st Amendment. But the GOP is particularly hypocritical in that it does so WHILE AT THE SAME TIME insisting that they’re true believers in the 1st Amendment. That’s even worse.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, exactly. The broader difference generally lies with intent: Dems want to minimize harm and the GOP wants to maximize harm. But the effect of an act is its real intent, and any proposal by Democrats that would stifle speech online by legal dictate—yes, Hyman, that includes speech with which I disagree—is no less fundamentally awful than a similar Republican proposal. I’d like to think I can look past my biases and acknowledge that fact all the time, though I know I haven’t always done so. Acknowledging that flaw, however, is the first step to making sure I don’t always fall into that same trap.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Did I say something?
Anyway, your problem (in this context; I don’t mean to imply that you have only one) isn’t that you support laws against freedom of speech, it’s that you don’t recognize that legal silencing of speech based on viewpoint by private entities remains censorship. You want censorship outsourced to entities not bound by the 1st Amendment, and will then claim that it’s not censorship as long as the ideas being silenced are ones you hate.
It is legal censorship when Amazon refuses to sell When Harry Became Sally and legal censorship when Florida’s public school libraries remove books with LGB+T content from their shelves.
Re: Re: Re:3
How exactly is Amazon’s choice to not sell When Harry Became Sally “legal censorship”? Amazon made that decision based on the company’s own policy. Does Amazon consistently enforce its own policy? Who knows, but that’s irrelevant. No government coerced Amazon to remove it. From what I’ve found, no government even suggested that Amazon remove the book. Tangentially, there are plenty of other places to buy the book. For starters, a quick search tells me that Barnes and Noble, Walmart, amd ThriftBooks are selling it. Inversely, forcing Amazon to sell the book would be compelled speech, a First Amendment violation.
Anyway, glad to see you acknowledge that the Florida government’s bans of books from public school libraries are unconstitutional.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The legality of the censorship is irrelevant. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant. When Amazon chooses not to sell a book because of the viewpoints it espouses, it is censoring that book.
I did not say that Florida removing books from school libraries is unconstitutional, only that it is censorship. In fact, courts have divided on this issue and we do not have a definitive opinion yet: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/27/does-the-first-amendment-bar-public-schools-from-removing-school-library-books-based-on-their-viewpoints/
Re: Re: Re:5
So, private businesses are no longer allowed to make decisions regarding whether they want to “carry” something or not?
So cable TV companies must carry EVERY TV channel from the entire world? Otherwise, their decisions to not carry something…. say like OAN, is censorship? How about the basket weaving channel, can they ditch that because nobody watches it, or is that censorship?
Book stores must carry every single book every written, because any decision to not carry books that nobody buys is censorship? If a book store decides to not cary Mein Kampf, is that censorship, or is that a business and 1st amendment decision to not associate with that kind of speech?
Music stores must carry every piece of music ever composed, otherwise, to decide to not carry a piece of music is censorship?
And how about grocery stores, should they be forced to carry every brand that is sold in this country, otherwise their decision to not sell say… Goya beans is censorship?
At what point are companies allowed to make business decisions that affect their overall bottom line?
Twitter 1.0 hosting Nazi speech and bigoted speech such as yours, was bad for their business as it would drive both advertisers and users away. Without advertisers and users, Twitter would not make money. I mean seriously, do you really think people want to listen to fucking assholes like you? No they don’t. And companies like Twitter giving people like you the boot because you act like a fucking asshole is not censorship no matter how hard you try to twist that word to mean what you want it to mean.
There are consequences for your speech, private business deciding not to do business with you is not censorship, it’s private business telling you that you are no longer welcome in their business establishment because you act like a fucking asshole.
Don’t like it… tough luck you fucking snowflake… deal with it like an adult.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Private entities are allowed to censor as they like. That’s why the former management of Twitter was so beloved by woke ideologues – they censored opinions based on viewpoint in ways the woke approved of.
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. If companies make carriage decisions based on sales data or popularity or topic, they are not censoring. If they make decisions based on the viewpoint of the material, they are censoring. The fact that they may do so legally is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:7
I like how you didn’t answer a single question because you have NO ANSWERS. You’re full of nothing but bluster, hate and rage for people who have never done a single thing to directly harm you.
You’re just a whiney little bitch who has been given the boot because you constantly act like a fucking asshole, but somehow you think you’re the victim.
Get a fucking life dude and realize that you are just a low grade fucking asshole and nobody wants associate with you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I answered every one of your questions, because they’re all the same question. A private entity may decide whether to carry a product using any criteria they like. No private company should be forced to carry anything they don’t want to, or host any speech they don’t want to. If they make a decision not to carry or host something because they disagree with its viewpoint, then they are censoring. That’s what censorship is – the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls.
Re: Re: Re:9
Censorship is silencing opinion, i.e. what Devin Nunes is trying to do to the Internet cow, as the Intent is to stop the cow posting anywhere. That is not the same as moderation, which is that opinion does not belong on this platform, but you can say it elsewhere. By conflating censorship and moderation, you are trying to shutdown moderation so that you can attack opinions you hate anywhere that you find them, and your intent is to do so loud enough that the holders of those opinions are silenced. That makes you more of a censor that any and all platform moderators.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
Moderation is the silencing of speech based on form – spam, topicality, decorum – while censorship is the silencing of speech based on viewpoint.
Woke ideologues like to conflate the two so that they can frighten the easily led astray into thinking that not censoring means not moderating, so that silencing viewpoints is necessary to avoid spam.
Re: Re: Re:11
Heckling is the silencing of speech by shouting down ideas that the heckler disagrees with, and that silencing is by prevented by removing hecklers from the forum, and you have demonstrated that you wish to censor by heckling, and want the right to do that anywhere you find ideas you do not like.
Most of the tome moderation is anti censoring, by the removal of those who would suppress the speech of others,
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
In print forums, like TechDirt, no one can be shouted down, since all posts simply appear consecutively in threads. In live forums, hecklers should indeed be forcibly removed if they prevent other speakers from being heard. That is moderation, not censorship, unless the choice of which hecklers to remove is based on whom they are trying to silence.
So, as woke ideologues do, you are construing dissent as (now) heckling, and harassment, and abuse, and harm, and danger, because you want to silence opinions containing viewpoints you hate.
But you will not be allowed to do that. Even Amazon, which censors When Harry Became Sally, nevertheless sells Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier and now Time to Think by Hannah Barnes.
Re: Re: Re:13
They may no be shouted down, but they can be made so uncomfortable that they do not speak, which come to the same thing, you censor them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
It’s up to the moderators to run the forum so that all viewpoints can be aired while decorum is maintained. If the moderators are not doing that, then the speakers do need to find a place that is run better. But if the moderators are doing their job properly, then it’s too bad if the woke ideologues cannot stand to hear dissent.
In general, this “safe space” argument is just an excuse by the woke to shut down dissent. The site owner and commenters here on TechDirt dislike what I say, and practically rip themselves in half in fits of Rumpelstiltskin rage shouting and cursing at me, and it does not bother me in the slightest.
Note that this is different from having dedicated forums or groups where dissent is considered off-topic, and moderators do not permit it to appear. But large generic speech platforms should not have such a policy for the entire platform.
Re: Re: Re:15
…said nobpdy who understands how freedom of speech works, ever.
Re: Re: Re:11
…said nobody literate, ever.
Re: Re: Re:11
Moderatiing anti-trans bigotry is moderation on form – protecting decorum by ejecting that abuse.
Only deliberately lying trash like Hyman claim it’s based on opinion.
Re: Re: Re:7
Wow. You don’t know “woke ideologues” at all, do you? They weren’t particularly happy with Twitter’s moderation at all. Lots of people complained about Twitter not removing certain posts or accounts quite frequently, and some also complained about being moderated against themselves.
It’s seriously like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Seems like a golden age for them in retrospect, doesn’t it? As soon as Musk started talking about buying Twitter and making it safe for free speech (not that he’s necessarily done that) you could see the “uh oh” going off in their heads. “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.”
Imagine what Democrats will be like if Manchin and Sinema get replaced by Republicans. It’s like that.
Re: Re: Re:9
You… realize you shot your argument in the foot, right? The former management wasn’t moderating as they did just to satisfy woke ideologues. Just because it was better for them than Musk’s current regime doesn’t mean it was in their favor.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I’ll just leave you with this biblical quote, Exodus 16:2,3, very reminiscent of the anti-Musk whining:
Re: Re: Re:11
I don’t understand the relevance.
However, my point is that, up till now, you’ve been saying that “woke ideologues” have praised Twitter’s moderation practices in support of your claim that Twitter’s moderation practices favored them. That—along with a few pieces of anecdotal evidence which are, by their nature, insufficient to prove a trend—has been the only support you’ve offered for your claim beyond, “It’s obvious,” and the Twitter Files (which don’t actually support your claim). What I just did is demonstrate that that is, in fact, false, meaning you are lacking support for your claim. While it may not outright refute the claim, it does mean that you now have fewer supporting facts for it, reducing the persuasiveness of your arguments. In other words, this admission goes against your claim.
Also, you can’t use both them whining and them cheering about the same practices as support for your argument that the practices favor them. That would put your claim on the level of a bog-standard conspiracy theory in that every possible situation is support for the claim. Pick a lane.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Masnick has repeatedly written approvingly of how Twitter used to have a Trust & Safety committee, which, while not perfect, he says was miles better than what Twitter has now.
Hence the biblical quote – the Israelites hated being enslaved in Egypt, but when they are in the desert and short of food and water, they start reminiscing that Egypt was not so bad after all, where at least they were fed.
Woke ideologues might have complained, while the old management was in power, that Twitter was not censoring enough, but once Musk got involved, they realized what they were losing, and wished they had it back.
Re: Re: Re:13
Which doesn’t mean it was in favor of woke ideologues because Mike isn’t a woke ideologue no matter how many times you call him that. You would need to demonstrate that first. Plus, “used to be better than it is now” does not prove “used to favor me”. Neutral is better than bad, but that doesn’t mean neutral is good.
Do you realize that that’s kinda the opposite of what you would need? The Egyptians weren’t exactly kind to the Israelites; quite the opposite, really.
Basically, for them, Twitter was the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t mean Twitter was on their side, nor does it mean that woke ideologues think Twitter’s moderation was good.
Again, your asserted evidence doesn’t support your claim.
Re: Re: Re:11
lol, get fucked you straight white trash
Re: Re: Re:7
…said nobpdy not on hallucinogens, ever, as no such thing happened in the real world.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes or no, Hyman: Should the government force Amazon to carry any book that Amazon would otherwise refuse to carry?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Of course not. Amazon should be pressured, encouraged, or shamed, by public opinion, into behaving correctly. It is unconstitutional for the government to force a bookstore to carry books it doesn’t want to sell or to force a TV or radio station to air opinions its owners do not believe.
Re: Re: Re:7
And yet, when you whine about Amazon not selling one anti-trans book, you call it “censorship” and act like Amazon is preventing that book from being sold elsewhere. Having a book sold on Amazon is a privilege, not a right—and losing that privilege isn’t censorship in any way.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Censorship is the act of the censor, silencing speech based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant. The fact that the censorship is legal and constitutional is irrelevant.
For example, I can say here that Vajiralongkorn and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan are despotic morons. (I’m just saying that. I don’t know whether it’s really true.)
That does not change the fact that expressing such sentiments are forbidden and thus legally censored in their native countries.
Re: Re: Re:9
Welcome to Coneria!
Yes, that is censorship.
Now tell me how Amazon refusing to sell a book that can be sold through any other bookseller willing to do that (or through direct sales) is the exact same thing as being barred from criticizing political leaders under threat of punishment under the law.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10
It’s the exact same thing because censorship is the act of the censor, silencing opinions based on viewpoint on platforms the censor controls. The ability of the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant. The means used to accomplish the censorship are irrelevant. The range over which the censorship applies is irrelevant. The only relevant factor is that an agent with the power to silence on a platform chooses to do so based on the viewpoints of the opinions.
When the censorship is along the lines that woke ideologues want to see, they will insist that it’s not censorship. When the viewpoints being silenced are those of the woke, they will screech bloody murder, as they do about Florida, even though that censorship is also legal.
Re: Re: Re:11
Being an asshole and bigot isn’t a viewpoint Hyman.
Re: Re: Re:12
It technically is, though. The viewpoint of a bigot is “these people are lesser—subhuman, even!—and deserve to be treated as such by fine upstanding members of society like myself”. What they mean by “these people” varies from bigot to bigot, of course, but the sentiment remains the same.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
Calling someone those things is a viewpoint, though, generally the last resort of woke ideologues who are frustrated that they cannot silence dissent and therefore move on to personal attacks against the dissenters.
Re: Re: Re:14
Calling someone X is not a viewpoint, regardless of what X is. It’s an action in which one expresses a viewpoint, claim, argument, or fact about someone. It’s the idea that someone is X that can be a viewpoint, depending on what X is.
More importantly, it’s only moderation based on viewpoint if it matters which side of a discussion is doing it. If the general action of calling someone subhuman, for example, is moderated against, and it doesn’t matter who is doing it or who is being targeted by it for the purposes of moderation, then it is not based on viewpoint; it is merely based on content, which isn’t the same thing. By contrast, if it only targets white people or excludes those referring to white people from being moderated, then it’s based on viewpoint.
To put it another way, if every side of a given subject or something is targeted for moderation, that is not viewpoint-based discrimination.
I am unaware of any so-called “woke ideologues” who call people “sub-human” or “lesser”. They do call people bigots, and some may do so in the way that you describe, though you appear to overestimate their prevalence and influence.
Re: Re: Re:11
And when you show me how a single bookseller’s refusal to carry a single book is the same thing as a politician threatening to have someone thrown in jail for criticizing said politician, maybe I’ll give a damn about your underbaked, overused, half-assed, wholly right-wing workshopped bullshit. Until then: Welcome to Coneria!
Yes, yes, you believe in the “I have been silenced” fallacy, we get it. Are you ever going to say anything on this site that hasn’t been workshopped with right-wing “anti-woke” dipshits and repeated so many times over that it’s been thoroughly debunked to hell and back? Shit, man, I have copypastas stored in my text expander app (that link is one of them!) and even I try to avoid using them as much as possible. All you do is repeat the same shit over and over without ever trying to come at it from a new angle. It’s like you’re a caveman who thinks beating everyone over the head with the same blunt club is the solution to everything. Get a new script, you half-assed asshole.
If Joe Biden threatened Fox News in the same way Donald Trump threatened CNN and MSNBC back when the orange dipshit was the POTUS, I’d call Biden out for being as shitheaded as Trump. The worst speech deserves the most protection from censorship—which is why, for all the times I’ve told you to fuck off, I’ve never once said that you don’t have the right to say, for example, the exact same kind of blatantly genocidal anti-trans rhetoric that you’ll hear at CPAC.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
It is not necessary, and indeed a waste of time, to invent different locutions for telling you that you’re wrong. You are constantly wrong in the same way, and so I post the correction in the same way.
The demurring bookstore and the threatening politician are the same when it comes to censorship because they have both prevented an opinion from being shared based on it’s viewpoint on the platforms that they control.
Woke ideologues like to call silencing a fantasy because they want dissent silenced. But silencing is real. Woke ideologues like to pretend that silencing is only silencing when it’s absolute (or when they have been silenced), but that’s false. Silencing occurs any time the controller of a platform refuses to let someone speak there, and that silencing is censorship when the silencing is because of the viewpoints expressed in the speech.
The movement against woke gender ideology has taken off because woke gender ideologues insist on trying to force people into single-sex spaces for which their bodies disqualify them against the wishes of the people already there, and because the trans medical grooming-industrial complex has taken to mutilating children with insufficient care to determine whether that is a wise thing to do.
Re: Re: Re:13
Except the politician is attempting to use the force of law to prevent that speech from being shared by anyone in any space within the jurisdiction of that politician. The bookstore isn’t trying to prevent a book from being sold anywhere else—it’s only saying “we don’t sell that here”, which is that store’s absolute right to do (unless you think the store should be forced to sell that book when it otherwise wouldn’t, lest it be as censorious as a Florida fascist).
And these “woke ideologues”, are they in the room with you right now? What names do they want you to use for them? What are their pronouns?
By that logic, a forum dedicated to Mongolian basket weaving has censored a user if it bans that user over their posting an anti-Semitic manifesto. After all, the forum did technically ban that user for a “viewpoint”, regardless of whether the ban was for “off-topic speech”—after all, even if the speech if “off-topic”, it still expresses a viewpoint, and what is censorship (at least in your eyes) but “the silencing of viewpoints”? And what does it matter that the user in question can endlessly repost their manifesto on 4chan, whatever 8kun is calling itself these days, Gab, Stormfront, or any other bargain basement web service for far-right shitheads? It must be censorship (to you) if people don’t want to hear it or host it on their property!
Now what are you gonna do about that censorship other than whine like a dying bitch?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
The things I do about censorship are to donate to organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Institute for Justice, and post on forums like this one. I’ll probably also buy a copy of Hogwarts Legacy at some point, but I think I need a new gaming laptop first – mine is about six years old now.
Moderating away off-topic posts is moderation and not censorship regardless of the contents of those posts, if they are indeed properly off-topic. Moderation is not censorship because it is viewpoint-neutral. That putative basket-weaving forum would moderate away philo-semitic posts as well, if it were being properly moderated.
If a forum silences opinions based on their viewpoint, then it is committing censorship. The ability for the silenced to speak elsewhere is irrelevant. The penalties that the censor can impose beyond silencing (arrest, gulag, canceling) are irrelevant. Censorship is the act of the censor.
Re: Re: Re:15
So by uour own definition, it’s only places like Parler, Gab, Truth, and Conservapedia that “censor,” and not “large generic speech platforms.”
Because while, by your previously provided fake definitions, no “large generic speech platform” even at all exists, private spaces like twitter and facebook are moderating by conduct and behavior, not opinion. Lying that transwomen aren’t women is abusive harrassment, not honest opinion.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:16
Oh, look, the fool speaks in more than one line.
Transwomen are men. Woke ideologues construe dissent as harassment because they cannot stand or understand that people do not believe their ideology. Which, fine. This is why we have culture war rather than culture debate. Woke ideology will need to be destroyed in the voting booth by majorities who run it out of public institutions.
Re: Re: Re:17
..hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:17
We’re here to stay, Hyman. You can either pick up a pride flag and stand with us, or be trampled underfoot by the coming paradigm shift. Your choice. Personally I prefer you picking the latter so your corrupt influence will never darken our doorstep ever again.
Re: Re: Re:
“To be fair, we do see Democrats pushing laws to force websites to block and suppress various other content, including medical misinfo, hate speech, and content inappropriate for children — and doing so is also unconstitutional. So it’s not a partisan thing.”
From the outside, it does seem that at least one party has their heart in the right place – you can understand why they’re doing it, even if it’s wrong according to the constitution.
The other side… it’s usually an attempt to attack vulnerable minorities or enshrine religious ideals. And, often in a very hypocritical manner (e.g. closeted individuals trying to suppress gay rights then getting caught with rent boys).
Actual free speech (unmolested by government, not the weird “private communities should have no ability to react” version some people have) is good, but when it gets difficult it seems to not be a clear case that some abuses are the same as others.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
No no, what they claim is misinfo, often incorrectly, ditto hate speech.
Doesn’t change the fact this is a political hit piece article that has nothing to do with DeSantis.
I do like that you lay your biases bare tho.
Re: Re: Re:2
Do you have an example of it being incorrectly called such?
That’s pretty much implicit, since any anti-hate speech law would involve such things by necessity.
The fact that 1) you agree completely with the fundamental premise of the article (that the law proposed in Florida discussed here is unconstitutional) and 2) Techdirt has also gone after the Democrats for similarly unconstitutional laws and proposals is strong evidence that this is not, in fact, “a political hit piece article”.
Your only assertion that could go to the contrary is your claim that this particular proposal had nothing to do with DeSantis. Even if true, so what? It is a common framing device to reference other, similar stories about similarly situated persons (if not the same people) discussed previously. It adds context.
It is also not an unreasonable inference (if not necessarily correct, either) that DeSantis likely played at least some role in this proposal based on existing knowledge.
That isn’t a bias. That is a conclusion derived from existing evidence. That you would come to a different conclusion doesn’t necessarily demonstrate bias on Mike’s part.
Re: Re: Re:2
…lied nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re:
Dude. Then how do you explain the many, many, many times I criticize dumbshit Democrat-sponsored laws that also attack free speech?
This is not about partisanship. It’s about civil liberties. And I call out both sides when they fuck that up. It’s just that the Florida GOP (which, yes, is lead by DeSantis) seems to be making a big stand on just how anti-1st amendment they are.
I’m sorry that you’ve cast your lot in with a bunch of hypocritical grifters, but that was your choice Matt.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Cuz they don’t exist?
I mean they might exist a little. When was the last one? You’ve written several per month about FL alone last few months. Be honest with yourself and do a real comparison.
Would you have linked a random bad law proposal by some random State dem senator to the gov you don’t like? No of course not.
It very obviously is.
No….you don’t get blame any random thing a republican in FL does on DeSantis. And the funny thing is that you wouldn’t try to blame the initiative of a random state dem on Pritzker or Newsom. That’s the bias. You were right to “blame” the defamation law (except it’s a great law) on DeSantis, he asked for it. He did not ask for this, no other FL republican has supported it and it’s not going to get passed.
That’s your bias showing. Be fucking honest with yourself.
Ooohh, you moved on from “you’ve been lied to”. I’m just exposing your bullshit, Masnick.
Re: Re: Re:
They do exist.
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/07/23/senators-klobuchar-lujan-release-ridiculous-blatantly-unconstitutional-bill-to-make-facebook-liable-health-misinformation/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/16/senator-klobuchars-next-unconstitutional-speech-control-bill-nudge-act/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/10/20/new-york-wants-to-destroy-free-speech-online-to-cover-up-for-their-own-failings-regarding-the-buffalo-shooting/
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/01/03/ny-senator-proposes-ridiculously-unconstitutional-social-media-law-that-is-mirror-opposite-equally-unconstitutional-laws/
https://www.techdirt.com/2021/03/11/not-just-republican-state-legislators-pushing-unconstitutional-content-moderation-bills/
I could go on.
Literally the last two links above are exactly that.
Matty, admit that you’re wrong. You can do it. I mean, it’s laid out directly here. Just go ahead. Admit it. Let’s see if you can do that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your first example was 2021. Yeah, I think I’ve made my point.
And no, you wouldn’t have tried to blame any random law a dem senator proposed on the dem governor who didn’t support it? If you did that would have been bad too, actually.
But you sure did with DeSantis.
Cuz this isn’t about facts, law, or even logic. Just poltical partisanship.
And ironically you just proved that.
Re: Re: Re:3
Only if you are an idiot. Do you want to do a comparative analysis? Then provide examples of stupid laws democrats come up with in comparison to republicans, if the former is on the same level and stupidity you would have a point, but you don’t.
Of course I don’t expect you to do this because you are a lazy blowhard who rather jump to conclusions based on nothing. Mike could say that it’s sunny in California and you would immediately say he’s lying because some podunk in the state had a tiny shower – without actually having any facts backing that up.
You do understand that your behavior here means everyone thinks you are dishonest and a liar, right?
Re: Re: Re:3
What “point” do you think you proved here? You insisted that I would never write similar articles about Dems. I do all the time and I just grabbed the first examples I found. I proved you wrong, and here you are pretending you proved something?
Dude. No one believes you. You don’t believe you, because no one could be that fucking stupid.
Matt: we’ve tried this before, but I guess we’ll try again. When normal people realize they made a mistake, they admit it and apologize. You were wrong. I proved you wrong. You’re ALWAYS fucking wrong around here.
Just admit it. Stop pretending otherwise. You have not convinced a single person, because everyone can see what you wrote, can see that I proved you wrong. Just admit it.
Only a fucking toddler still keeps insisting they didn’t take the cookie when the cookie is in their hand. Are you more mature than a toddler?
Why do I know the answer already…
Re: Re: Re:4
That’s an insult to toddlers.
At least they can learn from their mistakes. Matthew here isn’t gonna.
Re: Re: Re:4
We’re talking about the guy still hung up on my making a tiny mistake that had no relevance to the point at hand whatsoever and trying to use that as evidence that I’m either stupid or arguing in bad faith so he doesn’t need to answer me, and who has decided to respond to most (not all, because he slips up sometimes) of my replies by calling me “Mr. Bari Weiss of the NY Post” as though that was some sort of clever own on his part.
He’s also a hypocrite as he seems unwilling to go away when told he’s unwelcome, but he expects me to leave because he says that he won’t answer me (even though he still does sometimes).
Experience.
Re: Re: Re:3
The next three examples are from 2022, one of them being from October. Were you so lazy that you couldn’t be bothered to check past the first example?
First, do you have evidence that DeSantis didn’t support it?
More importantly, Mike showed you the evidence that he would because he did. You were just too lazy to check past the first example of him criticizing Dems to reach the ones where he did exactly that.
But it wouldn’t be biased, which is the important part.
As he would do and has done for Democrats.
The evidence suggests otherwise.
By showing that he has done the same thing for Democrats in the past?
The only thing this proves is that you’re too lazy to read past two lines.
Re: Re: Re:4 less opportunity
Florida enjoys the efficiencies of a one-party government, emulating the island 90 miles to its South.
The same party controls the executive, both houses of the legislative, and the judicial branches. This is not entirely reflective of the voters.
As a result, there is less opportunity to critize Democratic bills, because there simply are not so many with any chance of becoming law.
Re: Re: Re:
The only thing you have exposed is how incredibly stupid and stubborn you are. Fuck off nazi lap dog.
Re: Re: Re:
Now, whose fault is that? I mean, who’s been writing those laws in FL, anyway?
Hee! Cool. Didn’t expect you to be dumping on the rest of the Republicans in FL as well as DeSantis! And so many fanboy statements before now, too. Maybe we’re finally wearing you down!
Re: Re: Re:
Mike links to a list of such articles, so I won’t bother.
Even if true, that could easily be because Florida has had a relative abundance of unconstitutional proposals and such recently compared to other states (even other GOP-run states). When one student in the classroom acts up more than their classmates, it is reasonable to expect that student to get significantly more attention than the others over a given time period.
That said, I’m pretty sure there was an article not that long ago regarding a law in California, and another about a Democratic-pushed bill in New York. I could be wrong, though.
As Mike notes, he actually has done so in two of the articles he linked to. Generally, when a state legislator of the same party as the governor of that state proposes a law, many people tend to link it to said governor unless the proposal is clearly opposed by the governor or the legislator is known to have acted in opposition to the governor in the past. Whether or not that is a fair thing to do, it is quite common, and Mike has certainly done so in the past.
It isn’t obvious to me. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion?
This is arguable, but you’re arguing bias here, so the question is whether or not Mike thinks so in other cases.
That said, even if true, that wouldn’t necessarily refute the claim you quoted. Leadership is not always to blame for everything that random underlings do.
I’m fairly sure that he would and has.
No, I’m pretty sure this is essentially a continuation of that. Those two ideas can both be true simultaneously.
You’ve done a terrible job of it so far, then.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Mr. Bari Weis of NY Post, I’m never answering any question of yours ever again. You’re too stupid to understand the answer and wouldn’t answer in good faith even if you did.
I really thought I’d made that clear. You’ve burned this bridge, whether by bad faith or just being too stupid to argue with I don’t much care.
Re: Re: Re:3
Agree, that is the feeling I get every time I take your arguments and shove them up your ass with facts and citations, which are always far superior as the only thing you ever show up with is bluster.
AND I BEAT YOU EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Re: Re: Re:3
Every accusation, another confession…
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ll be sure to tell him should I ever meet him. I still have no idea why you keep telling me this, though, since I’m not him.
I really have no idea what Bari did to upset you, but I assume that they understand that you consider making one tiny mistake that has no real relevance to the point to be definitive, indisputable evidence of either bad faith arguing or “being too stupid to argue with”, as you have certainly made that much clear.
Again, though, I have no idea why you keep telling me this, as I am not Bari Weiss.
Re:
It isn’t everyone else’s fault that conservatives have a monopoly on bullshit laws that do absolutely nothing for the actual problems they say people are facing.
You hitched your wagon to bunch of idiots. That’s on you.
Re:
And what if they admitted it was a ‘political attack blog,’ Mattie? What would this victory mean to you? Would you stop your trolling of its articles? What’s your point?
Re: Re:
He’s here to harass Mike and Techdirt in general, he has even said so. The reasons why doesn’t really matter since by all evidence he has some psychological problems that should be dealt with. Until something happens he will keep up the harassment, which if you missed it, he’s very proud of.
My advice, don’t interact with him because that just feeds his ego, just flag and ignore.
Man Texas and Florida in a dead heat for the race to the bottom 🙁
You can vote pro-republican or pro-america, not both
One need only flip this around to expose how blatantly unconstitutional it is, just imagine the screams of outrage if a democrat on the state or national level demanded that anyone who wants to write about democrat politicians has to register with the state/federal government and give them all that information lest they face consequences.
It would be a matter of seconds before republicans were screaming about the assault on their first amendment rights and how the democrats were trying to silence republican bloggers/reporters so the fact that another florida republicans is doing this in attempt to garner support just shows how much hatred he believes(right or wrongly) republicans in that state have for the first amendment and free speech.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
“Everyone who disagrees with me is guilty of TREASON!
That guy, probably.
Re: Re:
Projecting much?
laughably unconstitutional
Yup, this Florida item is a doozy!
But if yer gonna get picky about constitutionality,
then > 80% of U.S. law js laughably unconstitutional.
Most everybody considers the Constitution to be merely a guideline, where one can readily choose the parts to obey or ignore on any given day.
This is especially true of both major political parties.
Constitution for Sale - SOLD
Trump only used to be the bottom. Reality is the GOP sets new lows on a daily basis.
Re:
The thing is, Trump is an imbecilic buffoon. DeSantis knows what he’s doing and is actively doing harm to appeal to the GOP’s insidious base, whereas Trump was part of said insidious base.
TL;DR: Trump is stupid, DeSantis is evil.
Bloggity Blog Blog
I get the sense Florida thinks the internet has borders that correspond to their state lines. Perhaps counties.
(I wonder who the specific blogger was that caused this law to be crafted. Must have really blogged hard and made a lot of money!)
“(a) “Blog” means a website or webpage that hosts any blogger and is frequently updated with opinion, commentary, or business content. The term does not include the website of a newspaper or other similar publication.”
Was this written by ChatGOP?
Re:
No, it was written by Rupert Murdoch and News Corp.
Now where would they get an idea like that? 🤔
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28583669
Na zdorovie!
So here’s something else, If I write a blog post on Florida officials, and I recieve compensation for said blog post… and I most definately don’t live in Florida… would that also break the interstate commerce clause as well?
Another fun fact I picked up over at JoeMyGod.com
Brodeur first appeared on JMG in 2011 when as a member of the Florida House he introduced a bill that made it a crime for doctors to ask potentially mentally ill patients if they owned guns. Brodeur was elected to the Florida Senate in November 2022 after a “ghost candidate” siphoned votes away from a challenger with a similar name. Brodeur was accused of planting the fake candidate by imprisoned Matt Gaetz crony Joel Greenberg.
constitution
partisan comments detract from the simple fact that this is a 1st amendment violation. this isn’t the first time this politician is attacking the 1st amendment. so what will be done to stop it?
Re:
Attacking the first amendment is protected by the first amendment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
It will either not be viewed into law or the courts will strike it down.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
“voted”
i dare them to make the same law for astroturfers.
Their free speech, and if DeSantis and crew get their way, your enforced silence.
Republicans in Florida must be affiliated with the Nazi party
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Of course this bill is idiotic and would be unconstitutional if passed, which is unlikely. Just as anyone can file a lawsuit making any claims they want, any legislator can propose a bill containing anything they want. Stupid legislators like Brodeur will produce stupid bills.
I’m curious who you think has been claiming that Republicans, Florida or otherwise, DeSantis or otherwise, are fighting for free speech? Republicans are, and always have been, opposed to freedom, whether it’s library censorship, pushing religion in schools, trying to shut down drag shows, trying to shut down live or published porn, forcing recitation of loyalty oaths, and on and on.
The Republican opposition to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is certainly against freedom of speech, not for it. If anything, all defamation claims should be held to the actual malice standard, not just claims against certain special people.
The only thing I can think of is Citizens United, where liberals were totally against freedom of even clearly political speech, and sought to shut down such speech using the excuse that the speakers had organized themselves as a corporation, and then falsely claimed that such silencing was OK because “corporations are not people” and that their opponents believed otherwise.
Republicans make occasional noise about opposing cancel culture, but only in self-serving ways, when the speech that is canceled is something they favor. They didn’t oppose retaliation against athletes who knelt during the Anthem, for example.
Re:
Matthew M. Bennett, for one.
Who could have guessed that “Those leftists are the fascist censors!” was 100% projection and confession from the right just like every other accusation they make?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Nothing about the right being fascist censors precludes the left from being fascist censors. Free speech doesn’t have many friends.
Re: Re:
I mean, the definition of “fascist” precludes the left from being fascist censors. It doesn’t preclude them from being authoritarian censors, though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You straight white trash are the worst thing to come out of the gene pool. You have nothing to contribute but waste products and rape babies, and you know it. Your relevance on this planet and society is fading away and you’re afraid. You’re afraid like the bug getting mind read by Neil Patrick Harris in the Starship Troopers movie because getting touched by us “teh gheys!” always makes you piss yourself because you get confused boners hiding away in your Catholic closet.
You’re going to get fucked, Hyman.
Re: Re: Re:
Hiding the truth won’t make it go away, Hyman.
Re:
I’ll take ‘Anyone with a working long-term memory and basic pattern recognition skills’ for $500.
Re: Re:
Well that rules out the troll arguing with Stephen about what censorship is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
ERP software for Electronic Industry
Discover the top high-tech ERP software for electronic manufacturing. Improve your business with efficient operations and enhanced customer service.
requiring journalists to register
From proposed S:286.031, ``The term does not include the website of a newspaper or other similar publication. See SB 2023-1316, pg 5, lns 142..143.
So, in theory, I am safe. This year. My column runs in a regular newspaper and shows up on their web site. Next year, if they read what I say about them this year, the exclusion may change.
In fact, things may change sooner. Earlier this week when I checked on bill status, it had just been filed and assigned, but not yet sent through the sausage mill.
None of this can overcome the stench of unconstitutionality from the bill. On the other hand, in Tallahassee, there is not all that much concern about constitutionality.
Insert obligatory comment here about proximity between Chattahoochee and Tallahassee.
Best Digital Standee display for advertising
Are you searching for high-quality Digital Standee products in India? Look no further than Staietech. We’re a top supplier and manufacturer that offers reliable products and services to help you meet your digital signage needs. Contact us today to learn more.
Read more: https://www.staietech.com/digital-standee/
Customer software development, digital marketing, seo, laravel website, nodejs website, web app.
We are startup of young and enthusiastic team who are working on building great tools for clients to make their dream a success. If you are looking for a quality web development and digital marketing, Lets come under our bridge. Here we provide what one wants and put forward our suggestions in alignment to give our customers the product that serves their purpose.