Florida, in a First, Will Fine Social Media Companies That Bar Candidates (nytimes.com) 402
Florida on Monday became the first state to regulate how companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter moderate speech online, by imposing fines on social media companies that permanently bar political candidates in the state. From a report: The law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, is a direct response to Facebook's and Twitter's bans of former President Donald J. Trump in January. In addition to the fines for barring candidates, it makes it illegal to prevent some news outlets from posting to their platforms in response to the contents of their stories. Mr. DeSantis said signing the bill meant that Floridians would be "guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites."
"If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable," he said in a statement. The bill is part of a broader push among conservative state legislatures to crack down on the ability of tech companies to manage posts on their platforms. The political efforts took off after Mr. Trump was barred after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Lawmakers around the country have echoed Mr. Trump's accusations that the companies are biased against conservative personalities and publications, even though those accounts often thrive online. More than a hundred bills targeting the companies' moderation practices have been filed nationwide this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many of the bills have died, but a proposal is still being debated in Texas.
"If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable," he said in a statement. The bill is part of a broader push among conservative state legislatures to crack down on the ability of tech companies to manage posts on their platforms. The political efforts took off after Mr. Trump was barred after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Lawmakers around the country have echoed Mr. Trump's accusations that the companies are biased against conservative personalities and publications, even though those accounts often thrive online. More than a hundred bills targeting the companies' moderation practices have been filed nationwide this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many of the bills have died, but a proposal is still being debated in Texas.
have fun with that (Score:3, Insightful)
looks like somebody's upset they can't fabricate reality until they can force platforms to disseminate imaginary fun time
Re:have fun with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Elites are preventing me from lying, someone help!
Re:have fun with that (Score:4, Informative)
Re:have fun with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Reporter: “You’re a loyal supporter of former President Donald Trump [who is] for all purposes now, a resident in Florida, and he was de-platformed. Is this bill for him?”
DeSantis: “The bill is for everyday Floridians. It’s what we said. And it would allow any Floridian to be able to provide what they’re doing. But I do think that’s another issue that has been brought to bear. When you de-platform the President of the United States but you let Ayatollah Khomeini talk about killing Jews, that is wrong.”
Re:have fun with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember, DeSantis is not talking to us, and he's not really talking to the reporter. He could have prefaced his answer by saying "Thank you for giving me this opportunity to prove my Trump credentials and to encourage angry Floridians to vote in 2022."
Besides, knowing the difference between Khomeini and Khamenei makes one an elitist in Florida. This is the state where they believe that Hugo Chavez helped rig the election against Trump despite being dead, so there are some who probably think Khomeini is still out there.
Re:have fun with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me that there are lot of butt hurt people that might soon have their source of information control took away from them. Seriously, how long to you think you could manipulate elections and public policy, by saying who can say what and what can be said online? How long do you think you could control the free flow of thoughts and information before it came back to bite you in the ass?
Re:have fun with that (Score:4, Insightful)
Free flow != Exceedingly profitable conduit
Rump has the ability to spew all the lies, conspiracy fantasies and self-aggrandizement that he wants, he has his own web site (unfortunately for him it got shared only 2000 times in all of last week). He could go on Gab or Parler, or the other looney-tunes sites but refuses until they agree to pay him. He could be on Fox or OAN any time he wants, but won't go until they agree to some exorbitant fee for each appearance. Doesn't sound like he has much to contribute to the "free flow of information" to me.
Re:have fun with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Youtube lost the right to control their content when they silenced Tulsi Gabbard
Based on what?
Lost There Right? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Youtube lost the right to control their content when they silenced Tulsi Gabbard . Facebook and Twitter lost their right to control their content the moment they started fact checking and censoring posts that didn't fit their narrow political views.
What a load of crap. While you don't seem to be a fan of it the first amendment applies universally here just like it would protect a conservative church website from being forced to host ads for the local abortion clinic.
I think it's also fun that you're using the term "political views" in place of inciting violence or outright lying. You can try to rebrand it all you want but Trump was never banned for what a normal human would call "political views".
Re:have fun with that (Score:5, Informative)
Re:have fun with that (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like they aren't the "party of small government" anymore, either.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm really curious as to how this will play in court. How is this not a government compelling the publishing of speech by a private entity?
I have a hard time believing that this won't be immediately shitcanned by the first judge that sees it. Go ahead, Florida - stroke a fine onto Twitter so that their lawyers can flush this law right down the toilet and create legal precedent for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
I forgot where tweeting about your avocado toast is a guaranteed right under the Constitution.
What grants you the right to use someone else's property against their wishes?
Re: have fun with that (Score:2)
Why bother when they can have both?
Re:have fun with that (Score:5, Insightful)
They already have a "right" to "kick people off their proverbial lawns and censor to their hearts content", or does the first amendment matter less to you Americans than the second amendment?
It does seem that its the same group of people in America who simply love to wave their guns around, shouting about "muh rights!" and gun ownership, while at the same time loudly insisting that social media platforms have no right under the first amendment to control access to their platforms. I can't imagine a gun control bill going down all that well in Florida these days - something about the second amendment...
Re:have fun with that (Score:5, Insightful)
For Americans, no. For Republicans, yes.
Re: (Score:3)
First Amendment does not cover Facebook banning crazy ass postings.
It does, however, probably protect Facebook against this sort of BS retaliation by DeSantis.
here come the haters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Republicans are the new Blacks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You have [inadvertently] highlighted the issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Did he say that 20 times? Does your claim invalidate the fact that he knowingly lied to them and told them that their government was fraudulent just steps away from that very same government who was about to rule that the election was valid? Nope.
It's great you can point to (but some how cant be bothered to cite) a single moment in his speech where he wasn't inciting the crowd toward action but that invalidates nothing I've said.
Unconstitutional (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to force a private company to publish something against its wishes is gonna have an uphill climb in court.
Re: (Score:3)
When did Facebook get bail out money? You could argue that banks, which did receive bail out money, and then invested in Facebook, mean that Facebook received government money. But to me that's a stretch as Facebook cannot control who does and does not invest in it.
I don't want to read things I disagree with (Score:3)
And I like Facebook et. al. So their job is to please me. And censor away to their hearts content.
Unless, of course, the try to censor something that I am saying... Then the nasty monopolists need to be brought to court!
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of association says this law is unconstitutional. No one has to put a politician's sign on their lawn and no law can make them do so.
Re: Good luck with that (Score:3)
Re: Good luck with that (Score:5, Informative)
That's in exchange for the grant of exclusive commercial rights, easement access, subsidies, et al.
That's why FB isn't a utility. They never signed up for government monopoly. They have no reason to because unlike utility companies, they don't need any public easements.
The phone company can't lay cable without the government stepping in and taking authority over people's property. This rightly subjects them to additional duties, such as serving poor communities.
Re: Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
You say that like they don't own any fiber and have no dealings with the government in any other way.
Nope. He said that like Facebook isn't a utility. Maybe you should look up the definition of utility.
This is a discussion of how things should be and more than a few of us are happy to compel them to have public access.
On what basis? The constitution doesn't suddenly stop applying because some AC who is too chickenshit to actually attach their name to the post says so.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't believe you're that dumb.
hate speech (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, you are free to post any legal speech you want on the internet now without this law.
In the US, there are no "hate speech" laws preventing you from posting pretty much anything you wish to say.
You may have difficulty finding a place to post it online, but I"m sure you can if you look.
But just on a base level, there are no hate "speech" laws in the US.
Re: hate speech (Score:2)
First amendment lawsuit incoming. (Score:3)
This will probably fail on 1st amendment grounds, if it doesn't the effected companies should either open theme parks in Florida to be immune, or ban the entire state from their platform (which would be good for all of us)
This will go all the way up to SCOTUS. (Score:3, Insightful)
1st Amendment disallows banning speech. It also disallows forced speech/publication. Perhaps Florida can come up with some "forum" theory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it won't. The first court to hear it will rule against it and the supreme court won't even take the case by the time it gets to them. Not even this court.
Re: (Score:2)
The forum theory has been shot down numerous times. A private space can be a public forum if a government rents the space as a forum, but the private space is not forced to continue to be a public forum outside of the contracted terms. A private space can also decline to allow the forum.
But this doesn't fall under that. The law specifically addresses candidates, and candidates, even if they hold office, are not acting as the government when they give election speeches or hold rallies. Running for office is
Just cut FL off (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think there is anything requiring social media to work in Florida. I say just cut Florida off completely - don't ban individuals, ban the entire state all at once. Florida can create its own social network with its own rules but its crazy to force private companies to carry speech.
Re:Just cut FL off (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one has their finger on the scale, except Republicans in this case of compelled speech.
Web sites are private property. Web sites are not utilities or monopolies.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is anything requiring social media to work in Florida. I say just cut Florida off completely - don't ban individuals, ban the entire state all at once. Florida can create its own social network with its own rules but its crazy to force private companies to carry speech.
Sounds like a great idea.
Then, when the tides turn in politics, as they always do, we'll just fuck over your state next.
Facebook is a global company. Tell me forward-thinker...is it "crazy" for foreign conservative leaders to not want to live with the constant threat of being kicked off THE campaigning platform, by a United States company? Go ahead. Let me know why that kind of nefarious political backstabbing shit simply couldn't happen.
Again.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are saying is that its time for social media companies to get some religion.
https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lu... [inc.com]
If you can make a religious argument that you cannot work for homosexuals then certainly you could make the case that it is against your religion for your social media product to be compelled to carry someone's lies. I don't know of any religion that says that lying is acceptable. Why do religious Republicans lie so much when its against their religion?
Yes, there are strict limits to compe
Re: (Score:3)
cut Florida off completely
Didn't Bugs Bunny already try that?
Performative garbage (Score:5, Informative)
This is really all about DeSantis giving red meat to the base as he's putting all the "greatest hits" on the table in preparation for a 2024 presidential run. Conservative's no longer get to pretend like they don't partake in nonsense virtue signaling that's for sure (and that was a dumb argument anyway, all politics involves virtue signaling, it's like a core component)
This will absolutely be taken to court and Florida taxpayers will have to put up the bill to defend this law as well and the wealthy older transplants in The Villages and Palm Beach will lap it up.
Re:Performative garbage (Score:5, Funny)
Vice signalling in the case of republicans.
Re: (Score:3)
No, this is a valid response to the extreme political bias shown by online services.
It's why, for instance, the UK has draft legislation being put before Parliament that includes
(2) A duty to operate a service using systems and processes designed to ensure that the importance of the free expression of content of democratic importance
is taken into account when making decisions aboutâ"
(a) how to treat such content (especially decisions about whether to take it down or restrict usersâ(TM) access to it), and
(b) whether to take action against a user generating, uploading or sharing such content.
(3) A duty to ensure that the systems and processes mentioned in subsection (2) apply in the same way to a diversity of political opinion
Content that is of democratic importance includes content that "is or appears to be specifically intended to contribute to democratic political debate in the United Kingdom or a part or area of the United Kingdom"
In other words, don't stifle political debate but if you are going to reject it, reject it equal-handedly.
Those restricti
protection against the Republican elites (Score:4, Informative)
There is nothing protecting anyone from Republican elites that want to violate the Constitution and your rights.
Constitution? What's that? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost as if the GOP just hasn't read the thing.
So... (Score:2)
Think that Terms of Service are bullshit that don't apply to you?
1. Run for an election in Florida.
2. Spew crap on social media.
3. Profit
Really curious (Score:3)
How Florida thinks they can enforce these fines?
Haha (Score:5, Funny)
The party of small and limited government passed a law forcing companies to stop being so mean to them!
Staying on brand (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing screams 'minimal government' like forcing a business to host content toxic to its business.
Interstate commerce (Score:3)
The arguments about free association and first amendment, not withstanding, even DeSantis' argument already indicates the unconstitutional manner of this law.
guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites.
Some governor of Florida cannot regulate a company distinctly not present in their state. That is the sole authority of Congress under Article I, Section 8. The literal second Florida attempts to enforce this law, these companies will have ample ammo for filing suit in Federal court.
Living in Tennessee, I have no idea why Southern states seem so dead set on wasting massive amounts of their budgets on ideology that has a 99.9999% chance of going completely bad for the State. It's just massive amounts of waste going towards litigation that ultimately goes nowhere.
Triple entendre reaction meme. (Score:2)
This is fine [gunshowcomic.com] works pretty well whether one is depicting Florida, the GOP, or Facebook.
Perhaps banning social media ... (Score:2)
Not surprised.. (Score:2)
That it came from DeSantis, one of the most corrupted politicians around...
Twitter should buy a theme park (Score:2)
Then maybe I’d have a reason to visit the US
My state Gov is retarded (Score:2)
Fucking not understanding the problem at all.
If DeSantis run for Pres, don't vote him. Take from a Florida Man, he is a terrible person, leader, and politician. He cares more for his ego than anything else, and riles up the olds and/or stupids with visions of bringing back the good old days.
(Not that the Dem are any better. The guy running against DeSantis was charge with corruption running on anti-corruption)
Time For Some Fun (Score:4, Interesting)
Having said that, what Governor DeSantis needs right now is a case of Devin Nunes’ Cow (see twitter.com/DevinCow/ for details).
I could see lots of ways to have some fun with this law For example, companies like Twitter could ban Mr DeSantis for 14 days, then let him back on for an hour before banning him again. The law allows 14 day suspensions so maybe it will be possible to string lots of those together?
Or how about a few “technical hitches”? You know the sort - “404 - Page not Found”
If that doesn’t work, maybe code in a bit of super-necessary bandwidth throttling for these “more demanding” users. I’m sure Mr. DeSantis’ followers will hang on his every word even when they are delivered at a rate of one character a minutes.
And I’m fairly sure that Mr DeSantis is going to have some trouble with his social media passwords at some point.
OK, all joking aside, this is getting to be absolutely terrifying. The GOP are using the law to attack citizens and turn the country in to an apartheid state. Having different political opinions is healthy and normal and leads to exploration of ideas. We’re fast moving towards a time where ‘different political opinions’ are being outlawed, one small piece at a time.
Re: (Score:3)
Spam (Score:2)
So now trolls and spammers can simply sign up as political candidates? And requiring signature is no deterrance, if there's anything spam companies can do it's get signatures en masse.
Won't stand up in court (Score:3)
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:4, Insightful)
Eric Boucher [wikipedia.org] is a lot of things, but "crackpot lunatic"? Not really.
“It should not take a bush league punk-rock musician to point this shit out.” [altpress.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In this case, the lunatic demanding air time is not the problem. The constraints of Facebook or Twitter is not the constraints of even public access tv. What is a constraint is the tension between this law and the legal responsibility of social media. I register in Florida under the Open Source pantry. Every hour I publish a Disne
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:4, Interesting)
Federal law has priority in interstate commerce, and even if it is a local state candidate, Facebook is national and international, and fundraising like crises state lines. This is not like some kid selling crack on the street where they can claim local jurisdiction.
DeSantis mentioned, "guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites." Isn't that essentially admitting that Florida is trying to regulate interstate commerce, i.e., that his actions are unconstitutional? Of course, in today's politicized SCOTUS, Florida does have some hope that the right wing of the SCOTUS will support it.
Seems OK to me (Score:5, Insightful)
when Jello Biafra ran for mayor and got equal time on the podium.
Amusing, but I can see every crackpot lunatic demanding equal time online and a right to be heard. This should get interesting come local election time.
Official candidates have to register, there's usually a small fee, and sometimes there's a support requirement (number of signatures to get on the ballot).
That seems like a reasonable bar to entry, as it should weed out most of the crackpots and posers.
I note that after one of the debates where Tulsi Gabbard made an excellent showing, Google locked her account for about 8 hours with no explanation. Her campaign was unable to run ads or take donations, until the next day when much of the interest had died down. No apology, no explanation, it "just happened". (And a little later her lawsuit was dismissed [nytimes.com] because the judge ruled that this was not illegal for a private company.) (Tulsi Gabbard is Democrat and I'm staunch Republican, but this was simply wrong. Political censorship is bad in all cases.)
The debates have a "level of support", expressed as a percentage, needed to participate. Maybe if the news organizations were to publish and strictly adhere to "level of support" guidelines then that would also weed out the noise.
There's lots of way to approach this.
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:4)
You are implying that some candidates are not crackpots?
The problem here isn't with crackpots, it's with crackpots who are deliberarely lying with intent to foment violence or insurrection or to damage public health and safety. So lie all you want, Facebook loves your lies. Just don't lie in ways that hurt people - misdirecting people to the wrong vaccination center, encouraging people to storm the capitol, etc.
Trump was never banned because Facebook didn't like Trump, Trump was very good for Facebook profits and so they love Trump. He was banned for his content that continually violated the the terms of service and Facebook could no longer maintain a double standard.
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:5, Insightful)
Crackpots are still more than able to voice their opinion on the internet. With $5 a month in hosting fees, a few dollars a year to register your domain, and a 30 minute tutorial from YouTube about building a webpage, anyone with the most minor of technical skills can broadcast their opinion to the whole world wide web.
The "wild west days" never entailed having unlimited rights to host your drivel on someone else's servers for free.
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble with this is, that the powers that be, corporate, and I belie
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:5, Insightful)
No, every crackpot can STILL speak their mind on the intnernet. The interrnet has not cracked down on crackpot theories or lies. Instead the internet (or the "elites" to use the pollitically correct term on the alt-right) is cracking down on speech that can cause harm.
So yes, post all the videos you want about the flat earth or contrails. But the next tide pod challenge isn't going to stay up for very long. Neither will calls for people to overturn democracy and instill a dictator, or having a KKK book club, etc. You can still do that stuff online, but not on major (elite) platforms who want to keep their mainstream customers, you'll have to go on the dark net.
These media companies are not the government, which means that the government in the US is not allowed to either hinder their speech or demand that they repeat other people's speech. The First Amendment only applies to the US federal and state governments, not to private citizens.
Now just because you have a right to free speech does not mean you have a right to be heard. If people want to put their fingers in their ears when you are around then the government cannot prevent that. And if a social media site does not want to host your content then the government cannot coerce them to do so, without changing the US constitution. And these politicians in the dumbest state of the union know this full well, and they are only creating this legislation to encourage votes in the 2022 elections; when the courts strike this down, and they will, the politicians will just point to how "corrupt" the courts are and gain even more votes.
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the "early foundations of the entire Internet" was universities, government facilities, and corporations who needed to share data. Crackpots came much later.
Re: I seem to recall a time, (Score:3)
It may very well be legal under Section 230 of the CDA
Banning people or removing posts is definitely legal regardless of the CDA. The CDA doesn't grant that, it grants a safe harbor from certain litigation if you comply with it, is all.
Re: (Score:2)
> Banning people or removing posts is definitely legal regardless of the CDA.
Pretty much, it's first amendment that makes it legal with the words "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" which means the government can't force you to associate with other people. Not being allowed to kick people out or tell them to shut up while they are on your private property breaks the first amendment.
Re:I seem to recall a time, (Score:5, Insightful)
Candidates shouldn't be allowed to lie in the first place. lie cheat or disinform and be held accountale for their lies. Period.
They take an oath and if during their term they lie or during the campaign , they are simply tossed out the political arena.
The trouble is that some of them found out they can lie all they want they are not going to be held accountable . Come on.
Re:Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to tell you the bad news, but third parties in the USA are fringe and nonviable because any first-past-the-post election model discourages vote-splitting. Most people don't realize the Green Party are really a Republican front: the GQP bankroll them [apnews.com] in dark-money to run spoilers in close districts/races.
If you want "third parties" you'd have to turn at least one part of the USA's legislature into a proportional-representation (parliament) system, but THAT has its own massive problems. A good example is how the hyper-orthodox religious-extremist-supremacist parties have played Kingmaker in the Israeli Knesset for 30+ years, given far-outsized influence because they can threaten a vote of no confidence if they don't get their way every time a vote comes up.
Re: Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:2)
Re: Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:2)
Re:Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:5, Interesting)
The benefits of proportional representation outweigh the risks. Proportional model would lead to less extremism. Its entirely possible for extremism to take hold in a large party in two party system because the leadership has a huge impact on policy platforms and so on. The moderate parts of the party become fodder to enable the increasingly extremist parts and people are locked into voting in that party or the other party in the duopoly. So if anything this model can actually promote extremism. Whereas with proportional, people can just dump the extremist parties, they still exist and might be able to grab small minorities, but it gives the chance to people to dump a party that becomes too extreme leading it to become a small minority party without much influence. Fringe elements would also be better kept out of major parties, since they would have their own parties and people would flee from a party that is extremist, forcing the major parties to moderate, so they cant try to co-opt a major party to push their extremist agendas.
Re: (Score:3)
"Free speech" is not "let's protect speech we like." Vile scum like the Klan get to speak their foulness so that YOU get to espouse ideas which are, hopefully, saner. Once upon a time, that was a key tenet of liberalism, which is why the ACLU fought for the right for actual nazis (as opposed to "I disagree with you, so you're a fucking nazi") to march.
Re:Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:5, Insightful)
Through the public streets of Skokie Illinois, not the private halls of [insert Fortune 100 company here], and not on the pages of any newspaper of the day [mtsu.edu].
This has nothing to do with whether it's speech that someone likes and everything to do with the ability or private enterprise to decline to publish speech in accordance with its own goals and standards. Something that you studiously avoided addressing when responding to the GP post.
Re: (Score:2)
Your points may well be true, but don't have a damn thing to do with the comment I was replying to, nor the point I was making in return.
Re: (Score:3)
"thinks that it's appropriate to tell companies that they are OBLIGED to give violent anti-semitic thugs, white supremacists, and other toxic bigots a platform?"
My points have everything to do with what you replied to, and your inability to see that speaks volumes. Until the original poster corrects me, don't pretend that you speak for them.
Private enterprise (Score:2)
Through the public streets of Skokie Illinois, not the private halls of [insert Fortune 100 company here], and not on the pages of any newspaper of the day [mtsu.edu].
This has nothing to do with whether it's speech that someone likes and everything to do with the ability or private enterprise to decline to publish speech in accordance with its own goals and standards. Something that you studiously avoided addressing when responding to the GP post.
Does this mean that private enterprise can refuse to serve a certain class of people?
It's the same argument.
Re: Private enterprise (Score:2)
It depends on the class. Generally, the answer is 'yes.'
For example, I could start a No Homers Club and refuse to admit anyone named Homer (except for Homer Glumplich, because the plural 's' means we're allowed to have one) and this would be totally legal despite discriminating against an entire class of people.
The number of classes that you aren't allowed to discriminate on you could count on your fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it isnt, not by any stretch of the imagination.
You can refuse a black gay woman service for any reason that doesn't include her race, gender or sexual orientation.
Being a lying politician is not a protected class, no matter how much Florida wants to try and enshrine it in an illegal law.
Re: Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Vile scum like the Klan have a right to speak, only so far as they do not call for violence. The right to free speech is not infinite. You cannot call for others to go out and lynch someone and do so legally, even if you are not personally involved in the lynching. Also the vile scum like the Klan cannot come into my church without permission to hold their meetings, even if they only talk about flower arranging.
You're either lying or misinformed. Probably both (Score:2, Interesting)
> the same ones who insisted that selling a blank wedding cake to a non-hetero couple is "compelled speech"
You're misrepresenting that case, they refused to create a wedding cake for a gay wedding and offered to sell them anything already made. You can read as much in the court's decision.
> thinks that it's appropriate to tell companies that they are OBLIGED to give violent anti-semitic thugs, white supremacists, and other toxic bigots a platform?
The platform isn't the *speaker* of anything, as you
Re: You're either lying or misinformed. Probably (Score:5, Insightful)
The platform isn't the *speaker* of anything
In Miami Herald the newspaper wasn't the speaker of the article written by a candidate that it was ordered to publish but it still had the right to refuse to publish it. The freedom of speech includes the freedom to remain silent when one wishes, and to not be compelled to speak by the government.
and these are natural tech monopolies by virtue of Metcalfe's Law
They're not monopolies and I feel that you don't know what a law actually is.
This is more directly akin to banning, say, all black people from a business.
Being an asshole is not a suspect classification. Race is. And sexual orientation should be. (It's getting there)
letting the public commons be privately owned should be a dodge
Facebook et al aren't public commons. Never were. I can have a political discussion at dinner with friends, I can do so every day of the year for a decade, but it doesn't turn the table into a public forum.
Re: You're either lying or misinformed. Probably (Score:5, Informative)
Cakes are tedious
Isn't it funny how the supposed "party of free speech", the same ones who insisted that selling a blank wedding cake to a non-hetero couple is "compelled speech"
v.
they refused to create a wedding cake for a gay wedding and offered to sell them anything already made
The court said:
Phillips declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them any other baked goods. ... Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings
Sounds to me like you both agree -- the baker wouldn't make and sell a wedding cake for a same sex wedding. Moving on.
but Facebook doesn't have editorial control over any of the content here
Yes they do. Facebook can exercise such control over anything they like on their site. They might generally not do so, but they rightfully could and it's been seen before on various moderated fora.
political ideology, which is a suspect classification
Race, national origin, religion, alienage. Gender, sexual orientation (which are virtually the same thing in terms of how it shakes out) and legitimacy are getting up there, and in practice you don't see much about the last these days.
Some states may vary.
But regardless, claims of discrimination against political ideology don't fly when numerous people of the same ideology don't get banned. Further, if there were ever a least suspect classification for first amendment related issues where the discrimination is by a private entity with its own rights, this would have to be it. Otherwise you privilege one political group over the other. Let everyone choose what to do on their own and let networks divide into camps if that's what it comes down to.
You're advocating for Facebook to take more control over what people can share with their friends on Facebook
I'm advocating for them to show some backbone and stand for something.
What does "aren't a public commons" even mean? They certainly had most of the public discussion matters of importance on them. This sort of analysis has held up in, e.g. shopping malls, in the past, so I'm sorry but I don't have a problem with saying that the big sites where everyone is should have to let everyone speak to willing listeners.
You've shown an ability to read cases; try Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
. It makes it very clear that Facebook is no public forum.
Facebook's control is to stop willing parties to communicate by means of them. You are trying to shut down communication between people who want to communicate.
No. One, they can do so elsewhere. Facebook could always say it will host no speech other than discussions about how gay wedding cakes are mandatory. Their choice.
Two, speakers can speak at a distance if no one wants to host both. (And this often happens; people on one site will discuss something about a different site)
Re: (Score:3)
This is more directly akin to banning, say, all black people from a business.
No, it isn't, because you're describing a protected class. Change your example to: "Banning all members of a gang that rose to prominence recently for inciting violence at places of business" and suddenly the whole "businesses should be free to choose their customers" thing comes into play.
Re: Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:2)
Seems Democrats want de jure free speech and Republicans want de facto free speech, and neither gives much consideration to the opposite form.
Re: Yeah - that's Florida. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Businesses don't have to do business with you.
Re: Good move and long overdue (Score:2)
They did not censor him. They de-platformed him. That's very different.
And would you prefer if Zuck made these decisions unilaterally? Someone's gotta decide. Might as well try a sprinkling of democracy to see if that helps.
Re: (Score:2)
It's absurd that Facebook has some "supreme court" that deliberated on whether Trump should be censored or not.
Try walking into a McDonalds without pants on. Bonus points if you successfully use the word 'censored' in your ... pardon the expression... debriefing.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the equivalent of Trump being banned from stepping foot in Walmart so the governor writes a law forcing Walmart to allow Trump in.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it tries to prohibit media companies from blocking a candidate from commenting on stories the way the general public often can.
Re:"The Beating of a Liberal" (Score:5, Insightful)
"We know they are lying. They know they are lying, They know that we know they are lying. We know that they know that we know they are lying. And still they continue to lie."
—Alexander Solschenizyn
Re: (Score:3)
Then Citizens United needs to be repealed immediately, and it should be made illegal for corporations to contribute to political campaigns for any reason whatsoever.
You can't have it both ways.
Now stop voting for traitorous, criminal assholes like Trump.