r/technology May 23 '22

Florida’s social media moderation ban is probably unconstitutional, says court. Social Media

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/23/23138172/eleventh-circuit-blocks-florida-content-moderation-ban
902 Upvotes

91

u/ConsistentWafer5290 May 23 '22

Why would a court say “probably”? I feel like a court’s job is to give definitive answers.

94

u/Project_53X May 23 '22

A lower court blocked the new law. The issue was appealed to the Circuit Court, along with a request to overturn the lower court’s decision and allow the law to be implemented while the case is being heard at the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court basically said, “no we’re going to leave the lower court’s block in place because based on what we know so far, the law is probably unconstitutional”. So, the “probably unconstitutional” ruling was relevant to whether or not to allow the law to go into effect while the Court hears arguments on whether or not the law is actually unconstitutional.

Caveat: not a lawyer.

24

u/dcash4 May 23 '22

You may not be a lawyer, but did you stay in a holiday inn express last night?

4

u/Project_53X May 23 '22

Slept in my own bed. 🛌

4

u/trad949 May 24 '22

But did you get a decent night's rest?

1

u/Project_53X May 24 '22

Yes, thank you! Slept like a baby, next to my wife, who happens to be a lawyer.

22

u/aecarol1 May 23 '22

Because they've not actually had hearings where the state and opponents could each give legal reasons for and against. These preliminary injunction effectively say: "The State won't be harmed if enforcement is delayed, but people's rights could be violated if this goes into effect and later shown to be unconstitutional. It's unlikely to be legal, so it will be blocked until after more hearings or even the trial".

Of course, the State might be able to make a good case that could convince the judge otherwise and then the injunction will be removed. Generally, this doesn't bode well for a law.

-18

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

Let’s play armchair constitutional lawyer or judge. For what reason would a ban on censorship violate the constitution? It sounds like a loaded question, and rhetorical, but here we are.

7

u/Wolvereness May 24 '22

Let’s play armchair constitutional lawyer or judge. For what reason would a ban on censorship violate the constitution? It sounds like a loaded question, and rhetorical, but here we are.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but constitutional law is not nearly as simple as reading the constitution. There's a non-trivial leap from the phrase "abridging the freedom of speech" to be interpreted as forbidding a state from banning censorship.

First, you establish that states are bound by the same constitutional restrictions, but with an asterisk because they aren't actually, but close enough if we're talking for first amendment.

Second, you figure out how to distinguish between compelled speech and censored speech. Luckily, they're both aspects of abridging the freedom of speech.

Third, you establish how a freedom of speech behaves when doing business, like baking a cake for a gay wedding.

Fourth, you see if it all fits together. Is banning censorship compelling speech? Is censorship itself a form of speech that cannot be itself censored? Does it matter if we consider Facebook the same as a phone line provider?

The court is simply erring on the side of "there's a strong obvious case it violates the constitution, and delaying implementation would be wise, however there is still a case to be made".

-8

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

Some lady got me with a comment about newspapers publishing editorial letters. There is no right to have an editorial letter published.

I would posit it as the free speech of a human supersedes that of a corporation.

And I would full tilt just not ban any speech. If an idea propagates, it is for a reason. And if a man yells fire in a movie theatre, he can take some flak for it after from everyone, maybe get punched in the face and also be prosecuted if anyone got stampeded on.

13

u/aecarol1 May 24 '22

Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press.

You can say whatever you want to the public, but you can't compel them to listen and you can't compel the guy with a bull-horn to let you use his bullhorn.

-8

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

Yes, but what about building a following is using their bullhorn! You built that bullhorn. There cannot be a million twitters, that defeats the purpose of twitter.

Ah well. Echo chambers it is.

13

u/aecarol1 May 24 '22

The "purpose" of Twitter is decided by the owners of Twitter. There is no limit to the number of websites out there. If people disagree with their freedoms on Twitter, they could band together and create their own "public" site and allow whatever they want there.

Freedom of the press belongs to the owner of the press, the people who paid the money to build and develop that press.

-7

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

The greatest wool pulled over the internet user’s eyes was user registration.

Decentralize. Decentralize. Decentralize.

Sorry, I’ll bow out. I’m talking to myself mostly now.

8

u/InvisibleBlueRobot May 24 '22

In this instance, the theater can’t remove him despite this ass showing up to every Disney movies and yelling fire at every moving showing.

His actions force dangerous evacuation, but the law would not allow censorship of him, it would violate HIS freedom to say what he wants anywhere he wants and when he wants, even through it is Theater private propery and disrupting the theaters core business model.

These social media sites are not public property. Either is a theater. Or a Nordstrom. Or shopping mall. If the government wants open access, they can easily afford to make their own. It would be a disaster. Remember the insanity that was caused by Janet Jackson’s nipple at the super bowl? They are attacking Disney for their freedom of speech Right now? These same people who want anything goes on Facebook we’re saying their children were mentally damaged from seeing a nipple on TV. The government should stay out. If Musk wants to waste $45b dollars, then it would be his private property and he can do this if he wants, but government mandating this is insanely bad idea.

1

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

Okay, but where do you go berate and publicly shame the CEO of a social media platform for suppressing news. If the tried and true methods of society are not available to us.

I’m hoping the future consists of personal website blogs and RSS feeds. I saw a Lon Seidman video about RSS on my feed the other day. I haven’t touched those in ages. Thanks for the reminder.

2

u/InvisibleBlueRobot May 24 '22

Please provide an example of what you feel needs to be said and about whom? Now, let’s go do quick media test:

We can go both go post your criticism of any politician or CEO right here on redit as well as Quora, Twitter and Facebook.

We can be rude, belligerent and opinionated. We can say Musk is acting like a insecure media-whore who buys fame at the expense of his investors while making average cars that cost too much. We can call Hillary Clinton an evil devil-twat who (allegedly) eats children, kittens and puppies. Maybe call Trump a fat, orange treasonous blow-hard with a below average IQ and stubby mushroom shaped member (according to his Porn star sex-mate, I have no actual first hand knowledge).

Speak your mind about space lasers and flat earth or global warming and the need to go vegan. Guess what, on most social platforms, all this is completely allowed.

I’m all for transparency regarding what is and isn’t allowed and fair, consistent enforcement of (each companies arbitrary and completely selfish) standards.

But quite honestly, I don’t want dick pics in my kids social chats on Nintendo or Xbox. I want Twitter to be able to remove Bots easily without breaking the law. I don’t want live streams of murder as some new form of legally protected free speech that can’t be censored, just because a handful of government officials want to make a big public scene and grab some headlines.

If you compare what you want to say with what is and is not allowed, I seriously doubt you will have any an actual issue. If you do, I’d like to see what you were tying to say.

Question: You’re not selling fake, black market vaccines from Russia are you? That may not be currently allowed.

→ More replies

12

u/oldmanian May 24 '22

From my sleep deprived read of the article, the argument to ban censorship is based on the theory that the platform is akin to a public space and it restricting speech violates first amendment rights.

The counter is that these entities are typically privately held and have the right to remove content.

Specifically, they brought up the livestream of the buffalo murders, right now the platforms can immediately pull that content down and punish the accounts responsible. Florida would push to remove that censorship ability.

This strikes me as more GOP theater against the “woke” left. It’s all lunacy from the GOP.

-9

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

I’m pretty sure I remember hearing about snuff films as a kid and they are illegal. Some things we do not fuck around with. I don’t think someone broadcasting crimes is considered free speech. I don’t think the spirit of the law is to permit massacres to be broadcast. At the same time, if footage of Ariana men Square was available today, would anyone broadcast it? And would it be wise to remove it?

Also, If you can commit a crime online there is an argument to be made for the public square argument, yes. Your presence is online. These platforms made their entire business model being a public square. A forum, if you will.

And again, a human’s rights supersedes a corporation’s. The argument in the article says that the free speech of the corporation is being stepped on. The entire model consists of users publishing things en masse to a public forum for discourse. You telling me the only way free speech is valid on that platform is if Twitter is government property? Because I don’t think that’s how rights work.

8

u/oldmanian May 24 '22

“And again, a human’s rights supersedes a corporation’s. The argument in the article says that the free speech of the corporation is being stepped on. The entire model consists of users publishing things en masse to a public forum for discourse. You telling me the only way free speech is valid on that platform is if Twitter is government property? Because I don’t think that’s how rights work.”

Well, when you sign up for an account, you agree to their TOS, so you acknowledge you’re no longer outside in a publicly regulated forum as twitter can be held accountable for the content through various means and has the right to address that by administering standards of content. Twitter is NOT the townsquare. Nor is Facebook, Reddit, twitch, discord, etc. and as long as I’ve been around in the digital world there has always been moderators enforcing the spaces policy by deleting, banning, etc. I just don’t see this really getting any traction & honestly I don’t think it should. We’ll likely not agree on this, but that’s my view and you’ve got yours. Have a good night.

Oh and twitter is a shitty hellscape I abandoned in 2019.

-7

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

I joined twitter ages ago, and never used them. Felt an invisible need to never use them. Musk made me consider logging into my old account, if it is still active.

If you replace Twitter with Reddit, or any other free publicly available forum that’s how I feel.

You have a good night.

2

u/InvisibleBlueRobot May 24 '22

You could argue that forcing a private, for profit company (that provides free access to their service), to publish and disseminate messaging that they the company 1. disagreed with or 2. That may harm their business model or image is unconstitutional against their (the company’s) freedom of speech. After all, the courts ruled, corporations are people too!

Can / should the law force a a local news paper to print every single advertisement or classified add no matter how offensive? How about book publishers?

What if this law hurts the ability for the company to monetize their platform effectively? Of what if they simply don’t want you to use it that way?

It’s their hardware, software, technology… should the government be involved.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/InvisibleBlueRobot May 24 '22

I don’t think how the private platform makes money should impact the government making stupid laws like this.

I’m for consumer protections and data protections. This anyone says anything seems really unmanageable to me. It would make finding and disabling fake accounts potentially illegal. If they mess up, they could be breaking the law. We’re not even getting into various jurisdictions with opposing rules and people able to travel. It would be a cluster. There are so many issues with this…

Florida, “anyone should be able to say anything on YOUR platform without repercussions from you.”

Disney, “we support LGBQ…”

Florida, “how dare you say that, We will now use our power of the government to (illegally) financially punish everyone in your more liberal county because you dared speak your mind”.

This is how the government rolls. They don’t want more freedom of speech. They want a political win.

If the government wants to make a “free” social platform that supports all speech, they can and will likely have a new multibillion dollar porn hub paid for with US tax dollars in a few years… let’s go for it.

Don’t force it onto existing private platforms. I think everyone will find this “fix” will be worse than any of the current issues.

2

u/StabbyPants May 24 '22

It’s not a ban on government censorship but it does limit how a private company manages its business

→ More replies

-4

u/SnorkleBuddy May 24 '22

At that point, any smart lawyer would give up, because very little of this case hinges on fact. It’s entirely a question of law, which the trial and appeals courts have now been briefed on. The attorneys have made their best legal cases already. There’s nothing that would come out in a future proceeding that would change a judge’s mind.

2

u/ResponsibleAd2541 May 24 '22

The point is to get multiple states arguing before the Supreme Court

2

u/tattooed_dinosaur May 24 '22

The Supreme Court can fix that.

/s

2

u/rivalarrival May 24 '22

As a final judgment, yes, they give definitive, but appealable answers. But a lot of orders come out before the final judgment. Injunctions, for example, are requested to immediately halt certain activities, and are granted or denied before the case is fully argued and adjudicated.

Until the final judgment is ready to be issued, it would be inappropriate for the court to provide any other form of definitive answer.

19

u/alare May 24 '22

Aren't these the people that said businesses should have the right to discriminate against gay people?

3

u/rivalarrival May 24 '22

Yes, but they are also the people who said in Citizens United that corporations are people, and have the same free speech rights as people.

I happen to disagree. Natural persons have free speech rights. Artificial "persons" are a "legal fiction" and exist only to provide a reasonable, identifiable target for liability. There is no need to convey the full spectrum of constitutional rights to artificial persons.

Unfortunately, both sides are inconsistently applying their Citizens United reasoning to Facebook, et al.

My view is that corporations have no "right" to free speech. Any "speech" offered by an artificial person is subject to governmental regulations. Only natural persons should be exempted from regulations limiting speech.

From my perspective, we can argue about the regulation itself, but we can't argue that it is unconstitutional on the basis of infringing the right to free speech: Facebook and Twitter don't have such rights.

2

u/taedrin May 24 '22

No, that was Colorado.

→ More replies

12

u/abruzzo79 May 24 '22

The legislators know it’s unenforceable. It’s voter bait.

42

u/C1ashRkr May 23 '22

Do the republicans in FL care about the constitution? Desantis obviously doesn't.

28

u/einhorn_is_parkey May 23 '22

They think they do, but they’re oblivious to what’s in it

10

u/joan_wilder May 24 '22

They don’t know what’s in it because they don’t give a shit what’s in it.

11

u/9-11GaveMe5G May 24 '22

Like the bible, it's just a bludgeon to use on others.

-9

u/CrawlerSiegfriend May 23 '22

Agree or disagree aside, I think their ultimate goal is a legal one. Their goal is to have social media be treated like a common carrier.

3

u/red286 May 24 '22

Their goal is to have social media be treated like a common carrier.

They'd first need to have ISPs treated like common carriers.

3

u/b4ux1t3 May 24 '22

I literally need to use the Internet to work. It's a non-optional utility for pretty much the entire world at this point. It's not considered a common carrier.

And you're talking about making Twitter, a completely optional website that doesn't literally drive the entire economy, a common carrier.

Yeah, no, hard disagree.

→ More replies

1

u/C1ashRkr May 24 '22

Petulant foot stomping. It's all that it is. The money won't allow that to happen.

23

u/BadWaluigi May 23 '22

Gotta love the irony of conservatives wanting to restrict my right to start a website and dictate what content is there and not there.

They truly have no consistent values to stand on anymore. Just "whatever sticks it to the other guy" tribal BS.

Small government? Business rights? Free speech? Freedom of Association? Executive power restrictions? What's that?

-37

u/[deleted] May 23 '22

Social media should 100% be beholden to the same rules and regulations in this area as phone providers. When the platforms are as popular as they are they are on the same level as phones as forms of communication and should be treated the same way. Unless you argue Verizon and AT&T should be allowed to suppress information they disagree with, you’re being a hypocrite.

16

u/OkayShill May 23 '22

There is plenty of space on the internet, there's not plenty of space on a telephone pole.

Stop being lazy and make something that people actually want to interact with, and stop trying to force private companies and private citizens to give you their money and resources to provide you with a voice.

Grow up.

-17

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

So you support giant forms of communication intentionally stifling narratives they don’t support? The suppression of information under the guise of “misinformation”. At what point can we hold these private companies responsible for improperly blocking information that later turns out to be fact? Or atleast possible?. How many platforms blocked information and people who mentioned “Wuhan lab” as a possible source for Covid? Then last year that started being mentioned even by Biden as a possible origin? If this was your family group chat i wouldn’t care. But this is a world wide, heavily utilized, form of communication that is suppressing information it VIEWS as false without any evidence to support their suppression.

15

u/bryguyaz May 24 '22

Texting, calling, sending a letter are “giant forms of communication”. Twitter is a website. It’s a place, not a medium.

-18

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

Are you saying the internet isn’t a medium of communication? That websites created for the purpose of staying connected to friends and family aren’t communication mediums? That’s…an interesting view

16

u/bryguyaz May 24 '22

The internet is a communicational medium, twitter is not. There is a fundamental difference u aren’t understanding. If you behave inappropriately in a McDonalds, they can kick you out. You can still eat elsewhere, just not with that certain service provider. It’s really not that complex dude 😂

-2

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

McDonalds however isn’t allowed to kick you out for your beliefs. If they kick someone out claiming they’re misbehaving, and later it comes out that the person wasn’t misbehaving at all and was targeted for their beliefs, McDonalds is in trouble.

But that’s a false equivalency anyway. Because Twitter and Facebook are much more similar to Verizon than they are McDonalds. You can try to simplify it by referring to them as a website but anyone with common sense knows they have developed far beyond that. I’m sure you would have agreed a few years ago.

9

u/bryguyaz May 24 '22

I said nothing about political affiliation because the law on that is too contextual and situational that there is no case to case equivalent.

Both are false equivalencies because they have a physical storefront. There’s only 5 cell service providers with their own network. You don’t have many options. You have as many as you decide on the internet.

Plus, getting banned from twitter does not stop you from receiving the same communication/information you apparently think is a public right. They just can’t add to the privately-owned discussion. You do realize most of America doesn’t use twitter, right? 20%, compared to the 80% of Americans with cell service. This place would be anarchy if the big four service providers went down nationwide. twitter, Instagram, and Facebook going down is a nearly annual occurrence

→ More replies

12

u/OkayShill May 24 '22

You sound like a child.

If you don't like massive corporations controlling major portions of industries to the detriment of the market, then strengthen and support the FTC and the party willing to strengthen and support the FTC.

Corporations are private enterprises, run by private people, putting their money, time, and resources into their products and services.

They don't owe you a single cent of that money, a single second of that time, or a single grain of their resources.

Don't like them? Don't use their services.

Is there no service available to cater to your particular brand of bullshit? Start a new site. There's absolutely nothing stopping you from doing that besides skill and resources, and its not the public's or the government's responsibility to make up for your lack of either.

-3

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

I am almost speechless at this pro giant corporation stance you just took. Every single point you just made goes against everything you stand for. The hypocrisy is insane. The fact that you’re too blind or stupid to see it is insane. Keep that same energy with every segment of business guy.

9

u/OkayShill May 24 '22

You've said basically nothing, so I can't really respond to you, except simply:

The First Amendment doesn't care about your feelings. And the answer to your question:

At what point can we hold these private companies responsible for improperly blocking information that later turns out to be fact?

Is Never. You never get to hold companies responsible for speaking, or choosing to not associate with your speech, regardless of what they are saying or what you are saying.

It is irrelevant. They get to choose to associate with you, just as you get to choose to associate with them.

You can stop using their services - that's the scope of your ability to hold companies accountable.

The fact that you think you're owed anything from these companies is a wonderment of entitlement frankly.

Have a problem with their construction, rules, or behavior? Create a different organization that caters to your preferences, stop whining like a little bitch when people aren't interested in what you have to say, and aren't willing to give their money over so that you can have an audience in which to say it to.

Boo hoo.

→ More replies

4

u/theshere May 24 '22

Supporting the FTC is not "pro giant corporation" unless you're being entirely disingenuous.

1

u/BadWaluigi May 24 '22

Stop comparing Twitter to town hall.

A public square isn't a publicly traded company. Stop conflating the two.

2

u/upbeat_currant May 23 '22

So how does this work for the algorithmic serving and preferencing of content to drive engagement if social media platforms are going to be required to act like AT&T and Verizon?

-2

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

I’m not fluent in all things tech. I’m not sure i understand what you’re saying. But if i do understand, i do not think ending information suppression will affect the algorithm at all. Unless I’m wildly wrong in which case I’m happy to learn.

2

u/upbeat_currant May 24 '22

What I’m always curious about when the question of content removal gets raised (especially when people advocate for treating the platform as a utility) is how the flip side gets handled.

Facebook and YouTube are probably the easiest examples. Certain videos are given preference because Meta and Google, respectively, have built their platforms to keep people on them for longer. Certain types of content is more likely to do so, and it gets preferenced by their algorithm. This is how the companies leverage higher ad revenue over time. Is choosing to show one type of content over another in a user’s suggested content feed also subject to rules and regulations under this logic?

2

u/b4ux1t3 May 24 '22

You have the option to not use Twitter, and to make your own if you so choose to share whatever opinions you want to share.

You do not have the option to not use the Internet. It's a driver behind pretty much the entire global economy.

But then, I'm not writing this to convince you, because, at best, you're an astroturfer, and at worst you actually subscribe to the utterly nonsensical rhetoric spouted by the Far Right.

1

u/maxxie10 May 24 '22

I'm not really across this issue, but from what I can see the difference would be that if you use a Verizon connection to call someone and shout racist shit at them, it's not going to make someone think they shouldn't use Verizon anymore. If it happens on Twitter, it makes people not want to use Twitter, which would cost them money. Twitter uses an ad model, so I'm not sure how a social media company would continue to exist as a profit making entity if their users get shouted off the site and advertisers refuse to buy add space there.

1

u/BadWaluigi May 24 '22 edited May 24 '22

So who gets to draw the line between what is "popular enough" and not? Big daddy government?

To clarify, I'm not arguing what should be. Just acknowledge the irony of conservative cheering for big government intervention into private businesses. That's the issue - conservatives are so self unaware. They skew their morals to fit whatever beats the other side. It's desperate anger.

33

u/Ssider69 May 23 '22

Twitter is not a town square. If it were a Town square it would be owned by the public.

12

u/stemcell_ May 24 '22

Republicans focusing on the trees and dont see the forest. Internet should be a public utility since most press is online now.

5

u/nzg412 May 24 '22

Comcast sure as hell wouldnt like that

5

u/Shyriath May 24 '22

Win-win, then.

2

u/nzg412 May 24 '22

If only they let us,all. These companys have congress in there back pocket

4

u/dcoli May 24 '22

Just like all print media is free?

1

u/stemcell_ May 24 '22

Kinda of like telephones it being a form of communication and essential to life. Like electricity

3

u/AnOrneryOrca May 24 '22

More the forest they're seeing is not the one they're talking about. There's just no connection between the two, because they are liars with bad intentions and no qualms about hypocrisy.

Their supporters get it though - the less moderation there is on social media, the more racism and disinformation and incitement to violence they can do with impunity.

To make all that palatable they say "I'm a freedom of speech purist" but what they mean is "I can say what I want and I'll police YOUR speech whenever I want".

See: every other law passed in Florida in the past few years

3

u/Wizard0fWoz May 24 '22

The "town square" often referenced here is a reference to a Supreme Court decision that said that a private owned area can be a defacto town square. Govt ownership has absolutely nothing to do with it.

1

u/Unfair-Tap-850 May 24 '22

It is a public traded company so it has to be public square. /s

1

u/stu54 May 24 '22

TIL that i can trespass on any property so long as I manage to buy at least one share of the company.

-10

u/pancakemixflexa May 24 '22

it acts as the town square tho

7

u/Ssider69 May 24 '22

No the internet acts as the town square. Twitter is a space on the internet owned by private people specifically the shareholders that Elon Musk may or may not give 44 billion dollars to

Twitter's business model is to offer more or less free access. Actually it's not free you're getting robbed of your very identity but people think it's free so we'll go with that

But that doesn't mean that you have every right to go on twitter.

If the site were truly the Town square then parlor getter tooth social and the other Hangouts for the alternative facts crowd would have to accept everyone's posts. And they most clearly don't

What the court can't deny is that you start some form of social media app or website or message board and present your own opinion

-17

u/pancakemixflexa May 24 '22

No twitter does act as the town square as its one of the current main forms of discourse on the internet, its a private company so legally it can do what it wants but should it fuck no. but I hope you're ok if Elon bans everything woke, you won't make a fuss about it? lol cuz I already see it, also app platforms ban apps like parlour so its basically like you cant create that type of app unless decentralized social media becomes a thing and hopefully it will. Im not even conservative at all but 100% for free speech which people like you aren't that interested anymore because you got manipulated into fighting the wrong enemy.

11

u/[deleted] May 24 '22 edited May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-21

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/Ssider69 May 24 '22

I'm all shakey now - I mean - you seem almost masculine when you talk like that.....give it to me baby

-9

u/pancakemixflexa May 24 '22

all the girlies say im pretty fly

10

u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind May 23 '22

Sorry to burst anybody's bubble, but Facebook or Twitter are not common carriers. They are private corporations. No different than Fox News or CNN. Though they are probably much more politically neutral than either of those two.

If you want to require social media platform to be politically neutral, how about requiring old-school media platforms to be politically neutral? Like Fox News having prime time liberal-views show? Or CNN giving airtime to Alex Jones?

1

u/YouUsedMeAgain May 24 '22

Because they are for profit enterprises.

Why on earth would CNN want to have Alex Jones?

They turn out that way because we, the consumer created them. Fox News well shape itself to appeal to its base…because it pays.

I laugh when people complain about the behavior of private companies. They do what they have too to make money.

-10

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

Some of us still believe in equal broadcast. And the rights of the citizen supersede the rights of a corporation.

Call it Human deference instead of chevron.

6

u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind May 24 '22 edited May 24 '22

That right never existed, and in fact it would be against free press clause of the 1st Amendment. Government can not force private entities to publish or promote any particular speech.

Before Internet, we would all send letters to our local newspaper. Yes, I am that old. That was literally the equivalent of posting our little rants on Facebook or Twitter. Which letters get published was up to the newspaper's editorial team. Government never had powers to force that newspaper to publish my rants if the editor found them objectionable. The editor could chose to ignore me, the president of the United States, or anybody in between. Again, see 1st Amendment.

2

u/holytoledo760 May 24 '22

I’ll grant you a delta.

→ More replies

23

u/StepYaGameUp May 23 '22 Silver

Fucking Florida.

Why are you always such a mess?

2

u/hupouttathon May 23 '22

Eh...you got some sort of problem with freedom, pal??

12

u/[deleted] May 23 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

40

u/hupouttathon May 23 '22

I guess I shoulda included the /s

8

u/einhorn_is_parkey May 23 '22

No it was super obvious it was sarcasm. Some people have no sense of humor.

7

u/Brownimus May 23 '22

Confirmed. Username does not check out. Nerves certainly not illustrious

2

u/Actual_Guide_1039 May 23 '22

The word pal should have done the job

-2

u/Thefear1984 May 23 '22

Nah, I'm going with "they overreacted" than "I forgot the /s"

2

u/ditchdigger556 May 24 '22

Amen brother! All this just to prep for the run for the white House. He doesn't give a shit about freedoms or anything that isn't found fresh up the Orange Moron's ass. DeSantis - the Orange Moron mini me keeping his nose well inserted.

1

u/impakkted May 23 '22

Just go rub one out and talk about it on Reddit again, it’ll all be okay

-7

u/Illustrious_Nerve_28 May 23 '22

You are still an asshat - so there is that.

0

u/invokereform May 23 '22

It was pretty easy to tell that the comment you're raging at wasn't genuine. I mean... read it again, c'mon.

7

u/FaustVictorious May 23 '22

Satire isn't exactly self-evident anymore, now that we have conservatives openly basing their beliefs entirely on spiteful falsehoods.

3

u/Illustrious_Nerve_28 May 23 '22

I really thought you were being serious - my bad then.

2

u/Himey_Himron May 24 '22

Is ok. I liked the rant.

0

u/swampflame May 23 '22

Freedom to ban books, ban CRT (which didn't happen in school), ban sex ed (that didn't happen)....and the list goes on......freeduhum

2

u/pancakemixflexa May 24 '22

level 5

Crt is dumb af tbh

2

u/swampflame May 24 '22

Have you studied it? Ive got 2 advanced degrees and never seen it taught?

1

u/drew1010101 May 24 '22

Fascism isn’t freedom.

3

u/jalapinyobidness May 24 '22

Love it.

Republicans are showing that they are only pro-business rights when it suits their political needs. For a brand that claims it wants small government they sure are trying to manage everything from peoples private lives to private/public business decisions.

Republicans are also going to get a crash course in what the first amendment actually regulates. Welcome to the fundamentals of constitutional law…

12

u/InevitablyPerpetual May 23 '22

They know. DeSantis is deliberately pushing as many fascist-supporting law packages as possible, he's running entirely on outrage politics, solely because it sells. It gets his constituents to keep giving him money, and it gets his Russian financiers to keep giving him money.

Which tells me he's working on a presidential bid.

9

u/Eldenlord1971 May 23 '22

Unconstitutional to ban social media but it’s okay to use your position to target a company specifically in order to leverage your own position while screwing over the people that live in that districts affected. Call me crazy but I don’t think politicians should be able to change things in government for personal gain

-3

u/cosmicspacebees May 23 '22

That's not what the bill says...

2

u/Eldenlord1971 May 23 '22

What’s it saying?

-8

u/cosmicspacebees May 24 '22

Your not allowed to ban political figures from your platform. How this restricts free speech I have no idea since it seems to do the opposite but since its Republicans it must be malicious

5

u/joan_wilder May 24 '22

They’re basically calling social media platforms “public” (which they clearly are not — just ask the shareholders), in order to claim that content moderation is “censorship” and a violation of free speech.

5

u/Eldenlord1971 May 24 '22

So I’m guessing you’re republican?

2

u/jimboihenbye May 24 '22

Bruh try a full on racist. Literally commented “All criminals are black” amongst other dog whistling in just the last 24 hours.

1

u/YouUsedMeAgain May 24 '22

Republicans do.

They believe rules and laws are for the others

But because they are white Christians, they believe they wrote the laws, so when they break them it’s necessary and for good reason.

Because for then they are about keeping the others down and themselves in control. They see breaking laws as necessary when they do it to maintain control.

5

u/Tatunkawitco May 23 '22

As if Florida cares what’s Constitutional.

2

u/catchtoward5000 May 24 '22

This dude always looks like hes got balls in his mouth.

5

u/Creepy_Helicopter223 May 23 '22

The new Supreme Court doesn’t listen to the constitution, they’ll listen to dark age inquisitors. The Law only applies to democrats

5

u/Foul_Chicken May 23 '22

Paying clowns to legislate and expect anything other than a circus.

2

u/Jax2 May 23 '22

Wow, Florida, and the GOP are really going off the rails, aren't they? It's almost as if that moronic Trump was the glue that held the entire bag of shit together, and now it's broken open and being spread everywhere.

0

u/JakeFromFarmState1 May 23 '22

Conservatives honestly believe (and rightfully so) that certain platforms are “left of center” leaning in their culture, policies and content moderation. Some more so than others. Which makes the timing of Musk’s Twitter deal all the more interesting doesn’t it?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

Often, legislation and revisions come about by change at the state level. Medical marijuana is a great example of being almost ready for prime time in DC. This is another classic DeSantis reactionary move to populist sentiment.

1

u/axionic May 24 '22

Musk presented his bid to buy Twitter at $52 per share on April 20, just as the stock reached an all time high, because he thought a 420 reference would be funny. Now it’s plunged to $37 and suddenly he’s having second thoughts pretending he didn’t know about bots. They are not going to let him back out now.

1

u/denverdave23 May 24 '22

This lawsuit was obviously bunk, but this is a place where both parties could get together. Twitter, Facebook, etc are the places where we, as Americans, express our first amendment rights. We no longer stand on soapboxes in the city square. But, first amendment rights don't exist on this platform. It's not censorship, it's not tyranny, but it's definitely screwed up.

Instead of grandstanding, I wish our politicians would fix the problem.

With TV, we created a government-sponsored network, PBS. It is a smashing success for kids, but doesn't really move the needle on adult first amendment rights. A government social network is probably going to be a failure. I'm not sure the answer here.

-4

u/itscrazyoutherekids May 23 '22

All ya gotta do is frame censorship as a “national security issue”.

3

u/Phobophobia94 May 23 '22

Who are they censoring? I mean the bill is bad but they want to force companies to not moderate at all

-4

u/itscrazyoutherekids May 24 '22

“Something something, prevents agencies from effectively monitoring white supremacist and terrorist communication channels….something something facilitates harmful potential disruption of something something…”

1

u/guiltynate May 23 '22

Add it to the list...

1

u/Hogwarts_Earth2 May 23 '22

Who can tell these days?

1

u/liegesmash May 24 '22

Does Florida do anything that IS constitutional?

1

u/montanagrizfan May 24 '22

Only if the Supreme Court actually decides to uphold the constitution. It seems they are interested in other things these days.

1

u/SuperMaximilian May 24 '22

Shocking what people have to say about free speech

1

u/SubterraneanSunshine May 24 '22

Probably?

Okay, and DeSatan is a fair-minded, articulate, well reasoned human being (since we are living in fantasy land).

1

u/YouUsedMeAgain May 24 '22 edited May 24 '22

So are the abortion bans but since when do Republicans give a shit about the rule of law when it comes to them?

The only thing they’ve proven in the last 10 years is that they feel so damn privileged that they get to break them.

1

u/shadowskill11 May 24 '22

Yeah, he has a habit of doing things that get smacked down by the courts. Checks and balances.

1

u/stu54 May 24 '22

Conservatives are mad that their beliefs can't compete in the free market. Why are all of the successful social media companies left leaning? Answer, because the right doesn't have very good ideas, just reactionary pearl clutching.

1

u/Felinomancy May 24 '22

Moderating content should not be unconstitutional. If I run a website about fishing, I don't want trolls flooding the place with posts about how fishing sucks.

If you're concerned with individual First Amendment rights and the ability to express themselves, make Internet access itself more affordable.

-6

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22 Rocket Like

Sooooo… didn’t twitter and the likes do this shit on a daily at one point in time and no one batted an eye?

3

u/cosmicspacebees May 23 '22

Restrict the suspension of famous figures? Yes, facebook specifically, celebs wouldn't be subject to the normal content rules. The WSJ reported.

1

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22

When have celebs ever been the target for real though? Only when those celebs align a certain way will any action be taken against them.. now if you just an average Jane or joe then good luck if that makes sense 🤷🏻‍♂️.. sad but true reality… but my thing is what’s the difference now compared to before? Not the biggest fan of news since it’s all been the same since well before I was even a thought 😅

2

u/cosmicspacebees May 23 '22

I dont think you understand, celebrity's could post things that normally would be taken down automatically (like nude photos some soccer player posted of a women without her permission) normally Facebook would take them down within seconds but because he was on the list (again check the article) nothing happened until days later.

1

u/Lo_MacOp May 24 '22

No I got what you mean.. Just looking at it from different angles is all 👍

3

u/C1ashRkr May 23 '22

Is fucking Twitter the government? Are you so fucking stupid you can't discern the difference? Rhetorical question you obviously are that stupid.

-2

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22

And here we go.. it was a question.. evidently this question touched a nerve.. and evidently you can’t handle yourself like a civilized human being and respond in a civilized way.. sucks to be you 🤷🏻‍♂️

3

u/C1ashRkr May 24 '22

No evidently you take umbrage at profanity, what I said is correct profanity or not. I've been temporarily banned on several platforms. If I was permanently banned from posting it would make no difference. Should social media be a public utility?, Isn't that like socialism?

→ More replies

4

u/piledriver_3000 May 23 '22

Heres the first amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Its understandable your shit reading comprehension would strike a nerve.

-5

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22

Sooooo.. and stick with me now if you will.. any company that holds sway over millions of people what with advertising and what not can delegate what is ok to say and what is not.. same companies that will in a heartbeat shut your shit down if you so much as speak out a little bit about anything that don’t go with the narrative.. you don’t bat an eye? You cool with that? Alright fair 👍.. But you want to now be all up in arms because the government is doing it? Hmmmm 🤔

4

u/piledriver_3000 May 23 '22

When I signed up to Facebook I agreed to the terms of service. The Facebook terms of service ( a contract ) explicitly said they can delegate and moderate speech and delete my profile for any reason.

If I didn't agree with the terms of service I could simply not use their service. No one is forcing me to use Facebook.

If the government where to tell Facebook; a private company, what Facebook can and canot do in regard to moderating speech on their service It would violate Facebook's 1st amendment rights . Particularly the part where CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

The first amendment only protects us from the government infringement of speech.

With your logic I can paint big dicks on the walls of your house and claim free speech protection when you try to remove it.

-2

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22

No cause that would be freedom of expression.. You do know the difference right?

4

u/piledriver_3000 May 24 '22

Freedom of speech and expression is synonymous .

You know what synonymous is right?

→ More replies

-1

u/Studoku May 23 '22

What part of "nummy nummy corporate boots" don't you understand?

1

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22

And what part of “freedom of speech” don’t you understand? It’s all or nothing.. It shouldn’t matter if it’s a company or the government.. one in the same in these states.. sad part is most of y’all wanna pick it when it’s convenient for you but get all hush hush when it’s not.. it’s a sad deal but y’all dug this hole 🤷🏻‍♂️

1

u/Studoku May 24 '22

Pretty sure we're on the same side here.

1

u/Lo_MacOp May 24 '22

The thing is we all are supposed to be on the same side.. But understood 👍

-5

u/[deleted] May 23 '22

Is Verizon the government? AT&T? Because they’re not allowed to block whatever they want. They’re considered a utility. And since social media has reached this giant utilization percentage, it too should be considered a utility.

3

u/C1ashRkr May 24 '22

It's not a utility. Ubiquitous online access has never been a utility, and the stockholders in the private companies that own and run social media will ultimately squash that.

1

u/Lo_MacOp May 23 '22

What kind of Mickey Mouse bs is this? 🫤

1

u/[deleted] May 23 '22

I love replies that provide a counter argument and not some want-to-be-Reddit-clever bullshit. Needless to say, i don’t love your reply.

1

u/Lo_MacOp May 24 '22

Oh you’re breaking my heart 🙁

1

u/cosmicspacebees May 23 '22

Restrict the suspension of famous figures? Yes, facebook specifically, celebs wouldn't be subject to the normal content rules. The WSJ reported.

-5

u/[deleted] May 23 '22

It is odd that mostly conservatives get things removed online for offending people, while if a conservative is offended it’s oh well. Lol

1

u/horseren0ir May 24 '22

They get removed for using slurs

1

u/stu54 May 24 '22

Can you really blame them for not knowing the appropriate terms for the thing they are referring to? They are literally trapped 40 years in the past. They cant read anything up to date to educate themselves because that would require them to take the modern perspective seriously. Thats teh devil.

1

u/[deleted] May 24 '22

But that’s on you and nobody else if you get offended. People should not have to silence themselves to make you feel good.

1

u/stu54 May 24 '22

If conservatives are anything but outdated people they can come up with new, less muddled terms for the ideas they want to promote.

Its like the word Woke. It meant something in the 90s, but now it is the punchline of conservative jokes. New terms will be needed to express the idea since it isn't cool to call yourself woke or socialist right now.

Being a white supremacist used to be cool, but then it became less cool. Being a homophobe used to be cool, not anymore. Being elitist is still ok, as long as you don't punch down.

-12

u/SolidSignificance7 May 23 '22

Banning accounts is unconstitutional.

2

u/nzg412 May 24 '22

Whilr im in favor of reform nah,private platform like facebook and twitter have rules stated in TOS you break the rules you are punished all there in black and white

3

u/jokerZwild May 23 '22

Cool. That means I get to sue the subreddits Conservative and DeSantis for banning me.

-2

u/Phobophobia94 May 23 '22

While a terrible take, this retort is pretty bad too seeing as reddit is mostly left-leaning and will have banned more right-leaning accounts as a result

1

u/jokerZwild May 23 '22

I have to start marking my posts as sarcasm.

1

u/R_Meyer1 May 24 '22

Guess you better go read that terms of service agreement you agreed to when signing up.

-21

u/proto_indo_european May 23 '22

There’s nothing wrong with the principle behind the law other than it was passed by republicans lmao. Like yeah social media platforms should be regulated like public utilities because public discourse shouldn’t be in the hands of unelected oligarchs and shareholders who own the company.

9

u/SimTheWorld May 23 '22

So are you advocating for bigger government running all these social media companies? Perhaps we should also pull the news networks into the public domain?

-9

u/proto_indo_european May 23 '22

Principally, I’d rather elected officials be allowed to manage public discourse, don’t care how its done, it just shouldn’t be in the hands of people who are unaccountable. If Donald Trump had the means to purchase Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, would you be ok with that in principle? You need to decide whether you value freedom of expression or property rights before you answer such a question.

Moreover, your point about news companies is disingenuous. News companies contribute to public discourse, but do not manage it, so there’s no reason to regulate news. Whereas Twitter manages discourse and has the option to select which discourse is shown and which is hidden, which is highly undemocratic. I firmly believe that discourse ought to be managed in a democratic fashion or through social convention, not the private sector.

7

u/Quibilia May 23 '22

Translation: Yes, I favour big government when it comes to this specific issue.

-9

u/proto_indo_european May 23 '22

I understand you’re not used to constructive discourse, but believe it or not, I advocate for stronger government regulation in most industries because the US has highly inefficient markets due to the failure of public policy over the last 30-40 years.

You should know that I’m a Ph.D. Student in Economics, so I think I know more about public policy than an unemployed furry. Stick to your dog porn lil bro.

3

u/Quibilia May 23 '22

Oh honey that's what we call a bankruptcy doctorate

→ More replies

3

u/SimTheWorld May 23 '22

Not sure how you can say Twitter manages public disclose since it has to power to show/hide differing opinions, but that news networks don’t have that same power on what they air? For a PhD student I would have expected a more thoughtful analysis…

→ More replies

3

u/C1ashRkr May 23 '22

Then don't use the platform, social media isn't a public utility. Public utilities for the most have been sold to the highest corporate donor.

→ More replies

3

u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind May 23 '22

This is exactly the same as to say that news companies should be regulated like public utilities because public discourse shouldn't be in the hands of unelected oligarchy and shareholders who own the company.

Luckily for "classic" news companies, they are explicitly enumerated in the 1st Amendment.

However, the parallel still exists. How is Facebook different from Fox News? If Fox News and NBC are not required to publish opposing views in a neutral manner, why should Facebook, Twitter or any other corporation be forced to do it?

1

u/proto_indo_european May 23 '22

I’m curious as to why you defend the right of private corporations to censor speech in the first place, do you value freedom of expression or property rights more?

But to retort, I’ll break from my tone and say I agree with you that news companies should be regulated becuase media monopolies like Time Warner, Fox, etc, are undemocratic, and that ideally news would be disseminated by a plethora of smaller, independent firms.

But my argument here is that Social media is a distinct good from news services, because news companies publish a specific content that is unique to the firm producing it, and carries a label as such: you consume CNN/MSNBC because it produces content you agree with.

Social media serves a wholly different purpose, social media exists to enable communication and discourse at a mass-level. Social media companies like twitter take content (opinions, news, etc) from a plethora of peopls, firms, etc, and publish it. You consume Twitter because you want to communicate with other people, you do not consume CNN to communicate with other people. These are clearly distinct goods, and like I said, I believe that the ability to communicate your opinion shouldn’t be moderated by unelected shareholders.

2

u/[deleted] May 24 '22 edited May 24 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/proto_indo_european May 24 '22

Exactly, which is why I argue that social media should be regulated by the government because the government cannot punish you what you say, you’re completely missing my point, so answer the question: Do you believe that unelected shareholders should have the ability to regulate public discourse?

I’m asking a normative question, meaning I dont care what the current of state affairs are, only what you believe the state of affairs should be.

1

u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind May 24 '22

Yes, they should have the power to decide what exists on their platforms.

If you want the government to run the show, you are free to put your tax dollars towards government run website. If you live in the US, there's a checkbox on your tax return forms to donate $3 to the presidential election campaign fund.

1

u/proto_indo_european May 24 '22

Dude you are basically a republican lmaoooooo, people like you are the reason we don't have a national healthcare system. Like prioritizing the rights of alien corporations is an odd hill to die on, but if you're content in living like a medieval serf than be my guest.

2

u/DudeWithAnAxeToGrind May 24 '22

Actually, I'm rather liberal. Maybe excessively liberal, while at that. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are Republican.

Those media platforms are private corporations. If they don't want to host neo-Nazis on their websites, you can't force them to host them. If some website does want to host them, well, you can't really force them not to either.

https://xkcd.com/1357/

→ More replies

-8

u/trollocaustx May 23 '22

Lots of fruitcakes up in here who think the internet and Twitter should be their safe space. It's not. You should move to China, I heard they have everything you want and then some.

Florida doing god's work again.

-7

u/maztow May 23 '22

People desperately wanting communist style censorships fail to realize that the same people they demonize would also control it.

5

u/FlyExaDeuce May 23 '22

Right wingers are banning books all over the country. They want to rewrite history and make sure children only hear their ideas in schools.

-2

u/zoicyte May 23 '22

both arguments suck: social media organizations are big enough to justifiably need to be regulated like common carriers at this point, but that shouldn't be used as an excuse to force them to allow unmoderated bullshit to be spewed on them.

oy vey.