Posted on 05/28/2021 7:30:54 AM PDT by Jacquerie
A pair of technology trade groups are pushing back against Governor Ron DeSantis after he signed a measure (SB 7072) on Monday that aims to block companies like Facebook and Twitter from censoring politicians from their platforms. A top priority for DeSantis during the 2021 Legislative Session, the new law gives the Florida Elections Commission the power to fine media companies up to $250,000 a day for “de-platforming” any candidate for statewide office and $25,000 per day for de-platforming candidates for non-statewide offices.
The lawsuit alleges that the new law violates the Constitution, noting that it infringes on the First Amendment “free speech” rights of online businesses – the same rights that DeSantis and Republican lawmakers claim the law seeks to protect.
“U.S. free speech principles protect the public from government penalties for speech,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers. “They do not protect elected officials from the speech choices of the public. Forcing a company to publish government officials’ speech is more characteristic of last-century dictatorships than 21st-century democracies.”
The lawsuit argues that “rather than preventing what it calls ‘censorship,’ the Act does the exact opposite: it empowers government officials in Florida to police the protected editorial judgment of online businesses that the State disfavors and whose perceived political viewpoints it wishes to punish…The Act is a frontal assault on the First Amendment and an extraordinary intervention by the government in the free marketplace of ideas that would be unthinkable for traditional media, book sellers, lending libraries, or newsstands.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecapitolist.com ...
That may be an interesting point.
This network stuff makes things so complex.
Justice Thomas is itching to look at a case like this so he may get his wish
Ok so the tech companies want to publish as they please. Then they have the same liabilities as any other news outlet or publisher. Can’t have it both ways, unless you are “woke”.
So preventing social media platforms from censoring political positions they disagree with is censorship? Quite possibly the person who came up with this is a man with a vagina...
Free speech — as long as you are a tech lord.
“ The lawsuit argues that “rather than preventing what it calls ‘censorship,’ the Act does the exact opposite: it empowers government officials in Florida to police the protected editorial judgment of online businesses…”
1) Editorial judgement? That proves 302 does not apply, as they are “editorializing”.
2) It doesn’t empower government officials, it empowers citizens of Florida.
Dumb argument.
Pretzels have less twists and turns in them than this "logic" from the censoring tech companies...
That is the legal argument that seems to be the most black and white. A “platform” does not censor based on politics. A publisher can.
They are clearly publishers in my opinion. However, they are publishers with endless wealth who can pay an army of attorneys.
Ultimately, I think this can only be solved by congress.
Nobody knows how to censor better than those that censor for a living.
Ironic: it’s about censorship, while they do their own censorship.
What convoluted nonsense!
The new law is about having to threaten a company to get them to honor the First Amendment.
Free speech is about letting people say what they think without "big brother" censoring them. Then the intended recipient of the news can decide whether to turn off the radio or tv.
I do not like the idea of big tech deciding what I may or may not hear or read.
How can the have standing before anyone has been injured? I guess standing and latches only applies to conservatives. Par for the course I guess.
“””The lawsuit alleges that the new law violates the Constitution, noting that it infringes on the First Amendment “free speech” rights”””
This seems to be a very weak argument by Facebook who prevents free speech.
more like a front hole
Northern District of Florida [Tallahassee]:
Age duty station born serving chief judge senior status appointed by
54 Chief Judge Mark E. Walker Tallahassee 1967 2012–present 2018–present — Odiousbama
45 District Judge Allen C. Winsor Tallahassee 1976 2019–present — — Trump
90 Senior Judge William Henry Stafford Jr. Tallahassee 1931 1975–1996 1981–1993 1996–present Ford
70 Senior Judge Robert Lewis Hinkle Tallahassee 1951 1996–2016 2004–2009 2016–present RapinBillClinton
The lawsuit is good. Only those that believe the 1st Amendment pertains to private business thinks it's a bad lawsuit. The 1st Amendment ONLY APPLIES to GOVERNMENT restricting freedom of speech, as this law may do. As a private business, you are free to restrict speech nearly as much as you want.
As someone else point out, however, the lawsuit does mention restricting the editorializing capabilities of private business. That's fine. I can accept that. Part of that, however, is that they have revealed themselves as publishers in doing so, and they must be stripped of their protections as a simple "platform".
This is rich. The argument boils down to this: It’s Facebook’s free speech right to restrict your free speech.
I don’t care who you are thass funny right there.
And true.
Totally agree.
They may pull this back when the bigger boys see it’s undermining their 302 exemption.
lol
This won’t stop in Florida.
Other states gonna do this too - if not a law then a lawsuit just about like the one the dumbasses in Fla are bringing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.