Florida governor signs bill barring social media companies from blocking political candidates

[Belk]

The problem is social media is protected because of free speech rights in the constitution but when they start banning speech then it is no longer free speech but biased speech. If you restrict speech that isn't illegal on a platform then you aren't being "social" to everyone who signs up but social to some and anti-social to others.
In other words "social media" is akin to the oxymoron "social distancing" in that they aren't a true form of either.
When I was growing up when you were cool and accepted by the popular people they snubbed or distanced themselves from you, and a media site that your opinions they want to distance themselves from are not being social with you but rather.... anti-social.
In other words instead of being an open social media platform you are more of an elite social club where those who don't meet your standards are censored, silenced, banned etc.
Trump was reaching 70 million people on Twitter and they banned him.... they aren't being social to the 75 million voters who listened to him at all.

Today's media platform are just that... and NOT social media platforms.

No, it is not. The first amendment only limits government. Private corporations and citizens can limit speech on their own property. This is very well established in case law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Apparently not, because.... Christian.

That makes sense. (read with a heavy dose of sarcasm)

Only if they're a political candidate.

And let's face it, only if they're a Republican.

I'm guessing just being Republican won't be enough--one has to be a very specific kind of Republican.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then I'm wasting my time if you cannot tell the difference between protected free speech and censored no protected free speech platforms then I don't know how to explain it to you.

You could at least try.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pitabread]

This site isn't social media

Online forums are a form of social media.

 

[Sophrosyne]

No, it is not. The first amendment only limits government. Private corporations and citizens can limit speech on their own property. This is very well established in case law.

Either you allow free speech and can claim protected speech rights or you don't and cannot claim the rights thereof. If these sites want to deny free speech they should be held liable for ANY speech on their site that they allow (condone). I don't see this happening though sadly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Either you allow free speech and can claim protected speech rights or you don't and cannot claim the rights thereof. If these sites want to deny free speech they should be held liable for ANY speech on their site that they allow (condone). I don't see this happening though sadly.

It's becoming very clear very quickly that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pitabread]

If a web site uses laws designed to protect them from lawsuits regarding free speech and they don't allow free speech but instead decide what speech is to be allowed then they are not entitled to protection afforded of such.

You're referring to Section 230 of the Telecomm Act.

However, you might want to take a look at specific legal text, as there is a specific clause that allows social media providers to explicitly censor content in specific cases, while also absolving them of the actions of their users (emphasis mine):

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material​

 

[Always in His Presence]

I'm sorry, but I think the CF server crashed. The part of your post where you actually addressed my question seems to have been lost.

Here it is again: "Does that mean a political candidate is exempt from a social media site's TOS?"

it seems to crash every time I ask you a question also. Go figure

 

[Sophrosyne]

You're referring to Section 230 of the Telecomm Act.

However, you might want to take a look at specific legal text, as there is a specific clause that allows social media providers to explicitly censor content in specific cases, while also absolving them of the actions of their users (emphasis mine):

(2)Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material​

Exactly...... the problem is "in good faith" is the huge issue. They are constitutionally IN GOOD FAITH censoring /banning constitutionally protected material.
This law is too vague now because Civil liability when it was made was very small and the need to protect speech has gotten huge so this law is no longer doing what it was intended to do because it is being taken advantage of instead of being followed properly "in good faith".

 

[ViaCrucis]

Exactly...... the problem is "in good faith" is the huge issue. They are constitutionally IN GOOD FAITH censoring /banning constitutionally protected material.
This law is too vague now because Civil liability when it was made was very small and the need to protect speech has gotten huge so this law is no longer doing what it was intended to do because it is being taken advantage of instead of being followed properly "in good faith".

It would seem then, based on your own posts, that your problem isn't with a platform having rules to govern who can use their platform, including limiting speech; it's that you don't like what kind of speech certain platforms are censoring.

Am I wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[KCfromNC]

Doesn't matter. The law only requires that they do business in Florida.

Hmm, so potentially an interstate commerce question in addition to a 1st amendment one?

 

[KCfromNC]

Does that mean a political candidate is exempt from a social media site's TOS?

If so I'm running for office and finally posting here what I really think about all you people! Try and stop me!

, obviously.

 

[Arcangl86]

Exactly...... the problem is "in good faith" is the huge issue. They are constitutionally IN GOOD FAITH censoring /banning constitutionally protected material.
This law is too vague now because Civil liability when it was made was very small and the need to protect speech has gotten huge so this law is no longer doing what it was intended to do because it is being taken advantage of instead of being followed properly "in good faith".

Uh, what? They can restrict any content

Hmm, so potentially an interstate commerce question in addition to a 1st amendment one?

Not necessarily. This isn't perputing to restrict interstate commerce, but only actions taken within the state. It's sort of a strange balance, but these kind of "larm arm statutes" are actually pretty standard.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then we should ban leftism entirely.

The important thing to remember, though, is that there's no Cancel Culture on the right.

 

[KCfromNC]

How does the law define social media platforms?

Would Christian Forums constitute a social media platform under the law?

Does this mean that someone from Florida can now come on here and break the rules concerning certain political topics and opinions? So like, if a Floridian decided to start a pro-gay marriage thread, then the admins/mods can't do anything yes? No?

They'd have to run for dog catcher or something first.

 

[Belk]

Either you allow free speech and can claim protected speech rights or you don't and cannot claim the rights thereof. If these sites want to deny free speech they should be held liable for ANY speech on their site that they allow (condone). I don't see this happening though sadly.

That is because it does not work that way.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then I'm wasting my time if you cannot tell the difference between protected free speech and censored no protected free speech platforms then I don't know how to explain it to you.

I'm wondering if you could explain it to anyone, not just me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That makes sense. (read with a heavy dose of sarcasm)



I'm guessing just being Republican won't be enough--one has to be a very specific kind of Republican.

-CryptoLutheran

Well, as we all know, the Republican Party is in an ongoing process of purging certain undesirables...

 

[lasthero]

I honestly don’t understand why there’s such a push from conservatives to use platforms that they think are run by people who are biased against them.

Just use Parler and Rumble. Their platforms pretty much made for you and your political tastes. Why fight so hard to give business to people you think hate you?

 

[Sophrosyne]

It would seem then, based on your own posts, that your problem isn't with a platform having rules to govern who can use their platform, including limiting speech; it's that you don't like what kind of speech certain platforms are censoring.

Am I wrong?

-CryptoLutheran

If you make rules and change them to penalize one group and help another and enforce them unfairly then rules are not really rules but essentially you are making yourself a corrupt referee and the gamblers are profiting from an obviously fixed game.