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.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, corruption, florida, ron desantis, section 230, social media


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 1:35pm

    '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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 8:51am

      Re: 'All animals are equal, political animals are more equal tho

      'Are you kidding, those first two groups are our party's bread-and-butter these days of course I'm voting for it!'

      Only the first two?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 May 2021 @ 2:26am

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Jojo (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 1:44pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Save up to 100% on Techdirt goodies! -- Just read., 24 May 2021 @ 1:58pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Save up to 100% on Techdirt goodies! -- Just read., 24 May 2021 @ 1:59pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 7:55pm

        Re: Re:

        Now that masnicks have come out gleefully boasting of their power

        What power? I thought your thesis statement was that Masnick had no power, you dimwitted single-celled amoeba?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Save up to 100% on Techdirt goodies! -- Just read., 24 May 2021 @ 2:01pm

      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/

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 24 May 2021 @ 2:40pm

        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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Canis Dirus (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 3:11pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Koby (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 2:07pm

    You Wish Government Could Do It Too

    I mean, I just can't even bother to respond to this nonsense.

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 2:12pm

      Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too

      if a government were to use secret algorithms against its citizens to dole out punishment

      Since when does Twitter have the power to put me in jail and execute me?

      God your a fucking idiot!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 2:20pm

      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...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Rocky, 24 May 2021 @ 2:32pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Baron von Robber, 24 May 2021 @ 2:57pm

      Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too

      I paid bail on my McDonald's Detention Center and Playground indictment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jojo (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 3:03pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 3:14pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 5:51pm

        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?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Samuel Abram (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 6:07pm

          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…

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 6:34pm

            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:

            Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.

            The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.

            When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]

            By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]

            The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]

            In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

            If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.

            A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 7:29pm

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 7:50pm

                while Twitter may not be a public forum in its entirety (at least currently), the feeds of politicians on twitter may well be

                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.)

                there is a long history of the US requiring equal access to at least broadcast medium to politicians

                If Twitter and Facebook were networks on a broadcast medium instead of communications tools, you might have a point.

                Such "content neutral" laws are regularly accepted limitations on free speech.

                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”.

                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

                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.

                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.

                That act doesn’t (and shouldn’t) regulate what speech a private entity — no matter how large or small — can choose to host.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 8:15pm

                  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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Rocky, 25 May 2021 @ 4:20am

                    Re: Re:

                    There actually now is a legal requirement hat Twitter host speech of any politician. Florida's.

                    Which is unconstitutional.

                    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.

                    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.

                    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.

                    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".

                    And the UDTPA clear does say what a corporation cannot say or publish.

                    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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 4:48am

                    There actually now is a legal requirement [t]hat Twitter host speech of any politician. Florida's.

                    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 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.

                    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.

                    A "content neutral" law is one that applies to all speech regardless of the substance.

                    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?

                    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.

                    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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                That One Guy (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 8:01pm

                Re: 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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  tin-foil-hat, 25 May 2021 @ 11:36pm

                  Re: Re: 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"

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Baron von Robber, 26 May 2021 @ 1:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: 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-t rumps-tweets-verbatim/

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 26 May 2021 @ 2:14pm

                    Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Baron von Robber, 26 May 2021 @ 3:14pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Naw, banning Trump is saying, "We've had enough of giving this dumbfuck favoritism and we are banning him."

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      That One Guy (profile), 27 May 2021 @ 11:39am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    That One Guy (profile), 27 May 2021 @ 11:34am

                    Re: Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 1:46am

              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...

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 6:39pm

          Florida can set the requirements for a corporation doing business in its state.

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 8:40pm

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Bluegrass Geek (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 6:12am

              Re: 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.

              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?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Tanner Andrews (profile), 26 May 2021 @ 7:00am

            Re:

            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?

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 26 May 2021 @ 7:46am

              Re: Re:

              Well, this is a complicated question.

              Getting out the flamethrower.

              It might be better viewed as a no/hell_no/no_way question.

              OK, you got me.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 26 May 2021 @ 9:26am

              Excellent answer. 🤣

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 27 May 2021 @ 2:33am

              Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 6:59pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 7:27pm

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 7:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 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

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 7:53pm

              And your point here is…what, exactly? That there are limits of “free speech”? Try telling us something we don’t know.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 8:55pm

                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."

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Mike Masnick (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 9:17pm

                  Re: 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.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 9:47pm

                    Re: Re: 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.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 12:40am

                      Re: Re: Re: 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

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Toom1275 (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 2:31am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      And the fact that you have to curse means you lose.

                      [Projects facts not in evidence]

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Bluegrass Geek (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 6:16am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      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.

                      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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      Mike Masnick (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 10:48am

                      Re: Re: Re: 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.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 1:51am

                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.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Tanner Andrews (profile), 26 May 2021 @ 8:07am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too

            It's just stupid people. And that includes anyone who supports this bill.

            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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sumgai (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 7:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too

          Just ask cable companies about the equal opportunity act that has been in effect since the 1930s.

          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.)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 8:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 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?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Bluegrass Geek (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 6:18am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              sumgai (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 7:52am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 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:

              Just ask cable companies about the equal opportunity act that has been in effect since the 1930s.

              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.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 8:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: 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.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 9:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too

          Also, aren't the libs the ones that don't value free speech anyway and want to censor people?

          [Asserts facts not in evidence]

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bloof (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 12:20am

          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.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 3:14pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Canis Dirus (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 3:16pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 4:53pm

      Re: You Wish Government Could Do It Too

      a corporation is doing it

      [Asserts facts not in evidence]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 10:05am

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Save up to 100% on Techdirt goodies! -- Just read., 24 May 2021 @ 2:12pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Save up to 100% on Techdirt goodies! -- Just read., 24 May 2021 @ 2:14pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 5:20pm

        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

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 8:08pm

      Re: You know, kids, IF the tide reverses, YOU will be targets!

      ... not even YOU, Maz, just another kibitzer.

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    William C Bonner (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 2:17pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 2:24pm

      '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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 3:04pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Darkness Of Course (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 4:38pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 8:11pm

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Michael Barclay (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 2:32pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 3:52pm

    "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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Alister (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 5:07pm

    I'm running as the antifa candidate

    it bans non-theme park associated websites from removing content or accounts from people running for office.

    I'm moving to Florida and running as the antifa candidate for every political office I can find.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 5:17pm

    theme parks

    I look forward to visiting Twitter Gardens & Facebookland in the near future.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 5:20pm

    Communist

    Forcing outlets to host government speech is straight authoritarian communism. Why is desantis embracing hard left policy? Why does he hate the Constitution.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 8:26pm

      Re: Communist

      Why does he hate the Constitution.

      Because he's looking through #45's rose-colored glass belly button, and it's distorting his vision. Something fierce, I might add.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Glenn, 24 May 2021 @ 5:53pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 5:57pm

    Knight v. Trump is going to be tested.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 24 May 2021 @ 6:46pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 6:08pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 May 2021 @ 7:24pm

    as they amplify partisan agendas and censor dissent

    ... well? Which is it? Partisan agendas, or dissent? For it to be partisan, there has to be an opposing party i.e. dissent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 7:45am

    We're living in George Orwell's Animal Crossing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    L345H, 25 May 2021 @ 9:47am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    That Guy, 25 May 2021 @ 9:58am

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 10:52am

      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.

      What we want is for the constitution and private property rights to be respected.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 11:42am

      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?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 25 May 2021 @ 12:56pm

      Everyone else can pick your other bullshit apart, but I want to focus on one thing:

      when gays weren't allowed to force a company to bake cakes for them displaying a message they didn't agree with

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 2:43pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 10:26am

    “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, 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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2021 @ 12:47pm

    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?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bhull242 (profile), 26 May 2021 @ 1:06pm

    So, a laughingstock just proved they are also a tech laughingstock? And this is news because…?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.