Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WFLA Tampa Bay)   Governor Ron DeSantis (FL-GOP) signs bill into law that will fine social media companies "deplatforming" political candidates up to $250,000 a day, encourages politicians to lie with impunity   (wfla.com) divider line
    More: Florida, United States, Social media, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Florida, social media companies, Donald Trump, Georgia, Lieutenant  
•       •       •

2533 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 May 2021 at 2:45 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



251 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-05-24 1:44:35 PM  
"Block all IPs and phones from Florida." -- Jack Dorsey

Won't happen but would be funny
 
2021-05-24 1:47:16 PM  
Good luck enforcing state-mandated publication of speech on a privately owned media platform you maga moron

/And Donald Trump is still not going to sleep with you.
 
2021-05-24 1:47:40 PM  
So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.
 
2021-05-24 1:57:37 PM  
How many lawyers will 250k a day hire to sue the shiat out of Florida? I am guessing quite a few.
 
2021-05-24 2:02:59 PM  
Is it possible that this was signed into law just to provide employment for lawyers?
 
2021-05-24 2:04:32 PM  
Having facebook, twitter, fark, etc IP block the entire state of Florida with a splash screen explaining it's the Republican's wish. Would be lovely.
 
2021-05-24 2:09:38 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


It has served it's purpose.
He has kissed Twittler's ring in a loud and public way.
 
2021-05-24 2:21:25 PM  
Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.
 
2021-05-24 2:28:28 PM  

Gubbo: Is it possible that this was signed into law just to provide employment for lawyers?


Like Florida lawyers are going to give up their Federal handouts to go work for DeSantis.
 
2021-05-24 2:34:51 PM  
Florida's pretending to be its own country again? The act would be more convincing if they refused all Federal dollars but oh no, that ain't gonna happen.
 
2021-05-24 2:35:54 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: "Block all IPs and phones from Florida." -- Jack Dorsey

Won't happen but would be funny


Half of the stupid people on social media are from Florida. (If they aren't they certainly are good at pretending they are).
 
2021-05-24 2:36:02 PM  
What farking idiot thinks that'll hold up in court? I can't imagine it was DeSantis. He's a sentient meatloaf who sniffs his fingers.
 
2021-05-24 2:42:05 PM  
Hmm, nationalizing (OK, statizing) media.

Where have I heard of this before?

/ have to Godwin the thread somehow
 
2021-05-24 2:47:37 PM  
Bullshiat publicity stunt in line with his attempt to suck up to Trump and his idiot minions.

Nothing more.
 
2021-05-24 2:47:50 PM  
Bro, you're not a teenage girl. Trump isn't interested in your little mushroom.
 
2021-05-24 2:48:22 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


Twitter and Facebook should immediately deplatform him and get this settled.
 
2021-05-24 2:48:52 PM  
This is VEEP candidate posturing, nothing more.
 
2021-05-24 2:49:46 PM  

arrogantbastich: What farking idiot thinks that'll hold up in court? I can't imagine it was DeSantis. He's a sentient meatloaf who sniffs his fingers.


He's just shoring up The Villages vote
 
2021-05-24 2:50:02 PM  
I'm pretty sure this is all covered under the terms of service you agree to with an account.
 
2021-05-24 2:50:06 PM  
Holy shiat these terrorists are farking sore that mienspace didn't take off and that Trump's digital footprint is like 95% lower then a year from now.

I didn't know that Florida got so much snow in may. I mean, look at all those snowflakes.
 
2021-05-24 2:50:15 PM  

Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech lies of conservative politicians and not regular people anything else.


FTFY
 
2021-05-24 2:51:04 PM  
They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 2:51:42 PM  
Drop the banhammer on FL Republicans and let them sue.  Twitter is a legal fighter.
 
2021-05-24 2:51:54 PM  
Someone is sure missing his orange binkie isnt he
 
2021-05-24 2:52:08 PM  
What is up with these crazy, evil folk willing to commit evil? I just don't get it.
 
2021-05-24 2:52:38 PM  
So all I have to do to never be thrown off Facebarf, Instrgrab, Twitface, etc. is run for office in Florida?
 
2021-05-24 2:52:41 PM  
IMO the more important outcome of this is that it encourages liars to run for office and thus become "politicians".
 
2021-05-24 2:52:54 PM  

casual disregard: What is up with these crazy, evil folk willing to commit evil? I just don't get it.


They like evil.
 
2021-05-24 2:53:07 PM  

GitOffaMyLawn: Hmm, nationalizing (OK, statizing) media.

Where have I heard of this before?

/ have to Godwin the thread somehow


Yeah, he's changed his mind about that.
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 2:53:43 PM  
Twitter and Facebook should be nationalized and liquidated.
 
2021-05-24 2:54:39 PM  
So "compelled speech", then?
 
2021-05-24 2:55:10 PM  
Florida : this is what happens when you weaponize old racist voters.
 
2021-05-24 2:55:34 PM  
Someone should "declare" themselves a candidate and post on OAN and Fox's media feed in comments and the immediately sue them when their posts are blocked.
 
2021-05-24 2:55:45 PM  
Desantis will now sign a law imposing a $10,000 fine on any individual who deplatforms Republicans by voting for Democrats.
Donating to Democrats is punishable by a fine equal to 10x the donation, or $1,000 - whichever is larger.
All fines are payable to the Florida GQP.

/You know he would.
 
2021-05-24 2:55:58 PM  

Gubbo: Is it possible that this was signed into law just to provide employment for lawyers?


Maybe, but how much will they really get? Is nakedly unconstitutional on its face. It'll zip through the courts with relative ease until the supremes laugh it off, it they even agree to hear it. If it's about billable hours how many are in this?

Any actual lawyers think this will be a cash cow?
 
2021-05-24 2:56:15 PM  
Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day? We need to have him file to run for office in some small Florida city and just post photoshoot of DeSantis all day until he is banned and can sue.
 
2021-05-24 2:56:27 PM  
So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?
 
2021-05-24 2:56:29 PM  
And with a straight face DeSantis and all of the GOP will turn around and decry government regulations stifling free enterprise and costing jobs.
 
2021-05-24 2:57:13 PM  
Sigh. Stop doing things, DeSatan, you're out of your element

Sadly so many people in Florida think he's doing a great job
 
2021-05-24 2:57:36 PM  

Gubbo: Is it possible that this was signed into law just to provide employment for lawyers?


Its conservative virtue signaling. They love empty gestures like this.
 
2021-05-24 2:57:55 PM  
Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.
 
2021-05-24 2:58:09 PM  

Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.


SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.
 
2021-05-24 2:58:15 PM  

GitOffaMyLawn: Hmm, nationalizing (OK, statizing) media.

Where have I heard of this before?

/ have to Godwin the thread somehow


I remember reading where that Godwin guy himself said that anything related to Trump is the exception to the negative perception of "Godwining a thread." You may Godwin to your heart's content guilt free. be at peace, my son. Selah.
 
2021-05-24 2:58:57 PM  

Devo: I'm pretty sure this is all covered under the terms of service you agree to with an account.


Kinda this. It'll never hold up. How hard is it to understand that private companies have a TOS? Break it? You can be sanctioned or banned. It's really not a hard concept to understand, and I am rarely the smartest person in the room. Even I get it. Facebook/Twitter/etal, can do pretty much what they want. Don't like it? Don't use it. Like an online game...fark with the TOS? Your gone.
 
2021-05-24 2:59:03 PM  

sdd2000: Someone should "declare" themselves a candidate and post on OAN and Fox's media feed in comments and the immediately sue them when their posts are blocked.


Yeah, this is actually a pretty cunning plan.
 
2021-05-24 2:59:35 PM  
Why do Republicans want the government (boo! hiss!) to actively control private enterprise in the free market and dictate their actions to them?? Is this Russia??!!

/Might as well be in GQP-land
 
2021-05-24 2:59:45 PM  
"Fine us how?" would be a fun question for one of these companies to ask.
 
2021-05-24 3:00:36 PM  
And this is the platform of the GOP. This is what is important to them. This is what they think is the driving need of our nation. How to legislate social media to favor them. They are the worst of us
 
2021-05-24 3:00:55 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


They know it will be slapped down.  It is all for show for their cult.
 
2021-05-24 3:01:04 PM  
Haha!  As far as you all know, I am a politician in Florida!  Now that Moderator will never be able to touch me!  Suck it!
 
2021-05-24 3:01:12 PM  

arrogantbastich: What farking idiot thinks that'll hold up in court? I can't imagine it was DeSantis. He's a sentient meatloaf who sniffs his fingers.


Some yokels might. But even most of them know it won't, but they will cheer for it and will think the costs to fight it will matter to Facebook, Twitter, etc. But it will look good on OAN.

If this had any chance of standing up there is no farking way they GOP would ever let it pass.
 
2021-05-24 3:02:19 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.
 
2021-05-24 3:03:25 PM  
Oh look, another "small government" conservative in favor of governmental control over private business.
 
2021-05-24 3:03:27 PM  

dywed88: arrogantbastich: What farking idiot thinks that'll hold up in court? I can't imagine it was DeSantis. He's a sentient meatloaf who sniffs his fingers.

Some yokels might. But even most of them know it won't, but they will cheer for it and will think the costs to fight it will matter to Facebook, Twitter, etc. But it will look good on OAN.

If this had any chance of standing up there is no farking way they GOP would ever let it pass.


Next week: "Activist judges block Florida's FREE SPEECH PROTECTIONS!!!!!~11"
 
2021-05-24 3:03:28 PM  

dildo tontine: How many lawyers will 250k a day hire to sue the shiat out of Florida? I am guessing quite a few.


They're already spending more than that on legal departments.  I can't wait to see how many of these never see the light of day in court.
 
2021-05-24 3:03:55 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

/When political beliefs are covered under non-discrimination laws, you might have a point
//But they aren't
///So you don't
 
2021-05-24 3:04:35 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


Not really, the difference is "asshole" is not a protected class.
 
2021-05-24 3:05:15 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages...


They're not.
 
2021-05-24 3:05:42 PM  

lolmao500: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.


Ummmmmm no.

The "President" at the time was using that platform in an official capacity.
There are laws even for the president.
 
2021-05-24 3:05:46 PM  

Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day? We need to have him file to run for office in some small Florida city and just post photoshoot of DeSantis all day until he is banned and can sue.


Gorgor?
 
2021-05-24 3:06:47 PM  

tfresh: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: "Block all IPs and phones from Florida." -- Jack Dorsey

Won't happen but would be funny

Half of the stupid people on social media are from Florida. (If they aren't they certainly are good at pretending they are).


Wait a second, I'm a native Floridian....

Oh, never mind.
 
2021-05-24 3:06:49 PM  
the GOP always claims how much they love the constitution like its a sacred document, yet they are constantly trying to pass laws that directly run counter to the constitution and its amendments.
 
2021-05-24 3:07:46 PM  
The State of Florida vs Facebook and Twitter .  This should be good.  Just like the dumbtanic running into an entire floating glacier.
 
2021-05-24 3:07:51 PM  

Ishkur: Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.


cdn.shopify.comView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 3:08:45 PM  
I hereby declare today to be laugh harder day.
 
2021-05-24 3:09:45 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


I know you're just giving a stupid hot take here, but you're not comparing apples with apples. What you're saying is that the cake shop should have to stand there and let some of their customers shiat on the floor.
 
2021-05-24 3:10:06 PM  

lolmao500: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.


The issue was that the President was using Twitter to publicize policy decisions that the public had an interest in, and was banning people who disagreed with those decisions.
This made it illegal as it was the government, in the form of the President, silencing dissent.

OTH, Twitter could ban them if they violated the ToS. But telling a President that he's wrong-headed about a policy direction is unlikely to do that.
 
2021-05-24 3:10:17 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


A bakery agrees to the "terms of service" - agreeing to abide by health codes, agreeing to not discriminate in personnel decisions on the basis of race, etc. Violating those terms means the state can sanction the bakery. At issue in that case was whether Colorado was allowed to sanction the bakery as it did (SCOTUS' answer: no, because CO did not deal fairly with the baker's position).

A politician who signs up for Twitter agrees to Terms of Service - including agreeing to not post dangerous or inciteful bullshiat (as determined by the platform). Violating those terms means the platform can deactivate your account. At issue here is whether the platform can determine for itself what is "dangerous" and "inciting", and FL seems to be saying that it literally does not matter even if it is, so long as the person doing the inciting is a candidate for office.

You see these things as being the same?
 
2021-05-24 3:10:30 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


The governor personally should be held liable for the bill, not the citizens of Florida.
 
2021-05-24 3:12:37 PM  

Ishkur: Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.


I mean that isn't what net neutrality is. But if it makes republicans care I'm happy to lie about it.
 
2021-05-24 3:13:06 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 3:13:18 PM  
This asshole isn't a tool, he's a whole toolbox. Like one of those that NASCAR teams use that are the size of a Volkswagen.
 
2021-05-24 3:13:25 PM  
So let me understand this.  If I register to run for any office, I can publish the names and addresses of all republicans and their families and ask for donations to have them executed?

Good to know.
 
2021-05-24 3:14:39 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


You just chucked that rod in the water
 
2021-05-24 3:14:47 PM  

SpectroBoy: He has kissed Twittler's ring in a loud and public way.


Yeah I'm not sure it's the ring he's got his lips on, at this point.
 
2021-05-24 3:15:38 PM  

dildo tontine: How many lawyers will 250k a day hire to sue the shiat out of Florida? I am guessing quite a few.


Or just one good one.
 
2021-05-24 3:15:49 PM  
Political theatre.  The GQP biggest talent.
 
2021-05-24 3:16:14 PM  
1st and 3rd Amendment violations.  Likewise, the bans on vaccination requirements are also 3rd Amendment violations-you should know more have to host the government's speech on its servers than you should have to house its viral reserves.

And yes, No Quartering Of Soldiers was about communicable disease.  The British used to make the colonies care for sick British soldiers on their own dime.
 
2021-05-24 3:16:37 PM  
LOL, yet another unenforceable dictate.
 
2021-05-24 3:16:54 PM  
From the Orlando Sentinel:

"A provision of the bill, however, exempts companies that own a theme park, such as Walt Disney Co., which runs Disney+, a streaming service."

How convenient, it exempts the largest employer in Florida.  Wouldn't want to piss off Disney.

Also from the Sentinel article:

"The bill signing took place in Miami, where local leaders had been trying to attract tech firms from California and New York."

Yep, this is going to make all of the tech firms flock to Florida now.

This guy and our legislature are freaking morons.
 
2021-05-24 3:17:10 PM  
What an evil little shiat this guy is.

I expect to see lots of petty little evil shiat from this evil little shiat over the next few months and years. He's like some evil little teacup dog on a lease held by Papa Trump, barking and snapping at everything around him, taking a whiz on the furniture and leaving little piles of evil shiat everywhere that are indistinguishable from his evil little shiat self.

/Evil little shiat
 
2021-05-24 3:17:28 PM  
Red meat for the base.

That is all it is. Not even legal
 
2021-05-24 3:17:51 PM  

Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day? We need to have him file to run for office in some small Florida city and just post photoshoot of DeSantis all day until he is banned and can sue.


Are you trying to summon rugbyjock or gorgor?  because those are two radically different animals.
 
2021-05-24 3:18:07 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


Bakeries are forced to do what now? You haven't the first farking clue about that case or the entire issue, do you?

It was a normal cake. The bakery had no problem taking the order. The decided later, too late to get another baker, they wouldn't fulfill it after finding out it was for a gay couple.

There, I've cured .0000000000000000000000000000000000000​00000000000000000000000000001 of your shameful farking ignorance.
 
2021-05-24 3:18:34 PM  

Gubbo: Is it possible that this was signed into law just to provide employment for lawyers?


No, it was signed into law to help DeSantis run in 2022 and 2024
 
2021-05-24 3:19:22 PM  

Shaggy_C: Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.
 
2021-05-24 3:20:20 PM  
Uh, how can the government tell a private company what to do?  At least in the context of who they MUST NOT ever ban.  I fail to see how that's even legal.

No company is under any obligation to allow someone to spout off whatever they like.

Also, because it's the government...  They've really got no business using a public company for their message like that anyway.  In a perfect world NONE of them would be allowed on social media at all except where they are putting out official announcements, not unlike official press releases.
 
2021-05-24 3:20:43 PM  

Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.


So let's sign up for a Florida election and go troll Parler. Is that still a thing?
 
2021-05-24 3:22:45 PM  

KiwDaWabbit: They're not.


I had to go back and take a look at the case from a couple years back. Originally, the Baker was forced by the Colorado Commission to create the cake, but the Supreme Court later overturned it on very narrow procedural grounds. So we don't have a clear-cut constitutional answer whether or not the Baker must create a political cake.

In any case, we can take a step back and try to reconcile the two views on what people think "should" happen in each case. Do you think the Cake Artist and the Platform both have an absolute right to refuse to create messages which might offend someone because of their political slant? How about a billboard company? Or a print shop?
 
2021-05-24 3:23:12 PM  

Dr Dreidel: So "compelled speech", then?


Hey, if legislatures can compel doctors to read false statements to their patients then what's to stop them from compelling other speech?
 
2021-05-24 3:23:30 PM  
No mention of fining political candidates $250,000/day for using a social media platform to lie, behave abusively, and/or incite insurrection against the U.S. government.
 
2021-05-24 3:23:32 PM  
Hmm just came to the conclusion we can weaponize this law against Florida and Facebook. Need to find some farkers in Florida and have them run for office. Then deliberately violate the terms of service across every social media platform and report em as being deplatformed I figure we could just flood the agency with calls until the system crashes. Then we'll we profit.
 
2021-05-24 3:24:44 PM  

SpectroBoy: Good luck enforcing state-mandated publication of speech on a privately owned media platform you maga moron

/And Donald Trump is still not going to sleep with you.


Honesty cannot be legislated.

U have to learn that one at home
 
2021-05-24 3:24:53 PM  
Shaggy_C:

If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

No it can't because bakeries are public facing companies, and social media companies require you to be enrolled via contract to use their services.

You claim to be in business.  How do you not know this massive, impossible to ignore difference between the two situations?
 
2021-05-24 3:25:15 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


Welcome to stinkhole florida
 
2021-05-24 3:26:04 PM  

behind8proxies: From the Orlando Sentinel:

"A provision of the bill, however, exempts companies that own a theme park, such as Walt Disney Co., which runs Disney+, a streaming service."

How convenient, it exempts the largest employer in Florida.  Wouldn't want to piss off Disney.

Also from the Sentinel article:

"The bill signing took place in Miami, where local leaders had been trying to attract tech firms from California and New York."

Yep, this is going to make all of the tech firms flock to Florida now.

This guy and our legislature are freaking morons.


He's as legitimate a republican nominee in 2024 as anyone else that will be running.

And having R after his name guarantees him a 5,000,000 vote loss and nail biter electoral college.

/scary thought
 
2021-05-24 3:26:14 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: GitOffaMyLawn: Hmm, nationalizing (OK, statizing) media.

Where have I heard of this before?

/ have to Godwin the thread somehow

Yeah, he's changed his mind about that.
[Fark user image image 586x114]


Godwins law was for Coke vs. Pepsi debates, not actual tactics of facist states.
 
2021-05-24 3:26:40 PM  

behind8proxies: From the Orlando Sentinel:

"A provision of the bill, however, exempts companies that own a theme park, such as Walt Disney Co., which runs Disney+, a streaming service."

How convenient, it exempts the largest employer in Florida.  Wouldn't want to piss off Disney.

Also from the Sentinel article:

"The bill signing took place in Miami, where local leaders had been trying to attract tech firms from California and New York."

Yep, this is going to make all of the tech firms flock to Florida now.

This guy and our legislature are freaking morons.


Yeah, I realize it's a publicity stunt to attract the mouth breathers... but they REALLY didn't think this through.  I feel like this will become a common refrain as the Q part of the party goes off the deep end.  Really spiting themselves over petty hatred.
 
2021-05-24 3:26:50 PM  
This sounds double plus legal.
 
2021-05-24 3:27:06 PM  

Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.


Used car salesman rich capitalists are wierd like that
 
2021-05-24 3:27:11 PM  

dildo tontine: How many lawyers will 250k a day hire to sue the shiat out of Florida? I am guessing quite a few.


Yeah, I'm thinking that one of these companies will build up fines just to have a case.
 
2021-05-24 3:27:41 PM  

Epicedion: shiat on the floor


It's time to get schwifty in here
 
2021-05-24 3:27:51 PM  
Another toothless law from the Republicans trying to stay relevant and not childish.
 
2021-05-24 3:27:59 PM  

thorpe: Florida's pretending to be its own country again? The act would be more convincing if they refused all Federal dollars but oh no, that ain't gonna happen.


Fed gov: nasty!!

Fed money: honey sweet
 
2021-05-24 3:28:04 PM  

LadySusan: Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.

So let's sign up for a Florida election and go troll Parler. Is that still a thing?


I don't believe the law would apply to parler.
 
2021-05-24 3:29:09 PM  

tfresh: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: "Block all IPs and phones from Florida." -- Jack Dorsey

Won't happen but would be funny

Half of the stupid people on social media are from Florida. (If they aren't they certainly are good at pretending they are).


All that heat/humidity fries their brains
 
2021-05-24 3:29:12 PM  

Shaggy_C: KiwDaWabbit: They're not.

I had to go back and take a look at the case from a couple years back. Originally, the Baker was forced by the Colorado Commission to create the cake, but the Supreme Court later overturned it on very narrow procedural grounds. So we don't have a clear-cut constitutional answer whether or not the Baker must create a political cake.

In any case, we can take a step back and try to reconcile the two views on what people think "should" happen in each case. Do you think the Cake Artist and the Platform both have an absolute right to refuse to create messages which might offend someone because of their political slant? How about a billboard company? Or a print shop?


Being gay is not a political statement. Inciting violence is not a political statement. Neither of these two things has anything to do with politics.
 
2021-05-24 3:29:48 PM  

SpectroBoy: Good luck enforcing state-mandated publication of speech on a privately owned media platform you maga moron

/And Donald Trump is still not going to sleep with you.


That was my first thought. Twitter is headquartered in San Francisco. Does de Santis actually believe ANYONE in SF is going to give a damn what he thinks?
 
2021-05-24 3:30:18 PM  

12349876: Godwins law was for Coke vs. Pepsi debates, not actual tactics of facist states.


I remember how insane the cola wars seemed at the time but, geez, that really was a naïve era - wasn't it?
 
2021-05-24 3:30:25 PM  
Shaggy_C:

So we don't have a clear-cut constitutional answer whether or not the Baker must create a political cake.

It was a wedding cake, not a "political cake", and wedding cakes are a service he states he provides via his advertising material.
 
2021-05-24 3:30:43 PM  

Shaggy_C: KiwDaWabbit: They're not.

I had to go back and take a look at the case from a couple years back. Originally, the Baker was forced by the Colorado Commission to create the cake, but the Supreme Court later overturned it on very narrow procedural grounds. So we don't have a clear-cut constitutional answer whether or not the Baker must create a political cake.

In any case, we can take a step back and try to reconcile the two views on what people think "should" happen in each case. Do you think the Cake Artist and the Platform both have an absolute right to refuse to create messages which might offend someone because of their political slant? How about a billboard company? Or a print shop?


It would be more like if you brought the materials into the bakery to prepare and bake your own cake and then got yourself kicked out after you took the cake home (or wherever) because you violated their terms of service and were told to go bake somewhere else in the future.
 
2021-05-24 3:32:19 PM  
I know it's been said upthread, but PLEASE block Florida. Pretty pretty please?

Gosh it sure would be nice if all the major social media apps blocked FL...
 
2021-05-24 3:33:52 PM  

JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.


So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?
 
2021-05-24 3:35:12 PM  

Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBTblack posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBTblack posts?


Yes, genius.
 
2021-05-24 3:37:11 PM  

arrogantbastich: What farking idiot thinks that'll hold up in court? I can't imagine it was DeSantis. He's a sentient meatloaf who sniffs his fingers.


Thing is - there's no cost to him when it doesn't.

He gets the political points for trying, and he gets something to campaign against when the "activist courts" strike down his "common sense protections of freedom of speech", and he gets to use other people's money to fight this in court for as many rounds of appears as it takes.
 
2021-05-24 3:38:23 PM  
Sign up to Twitter and share your mind

(offer not available in Florida)
 
2021-05-24 3:38:50 PM  

Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?


...yes?

The same way speech affirming racial harmony as a good thing is generally not a legally-fireable offense, but "I hate [redacted ethnic slur]" is.

If you really can't tell the difference, there is no reasoning with you.
 
2021-05-24 3:39:25 PM  

Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?


Substitute 'LGBT' for any other protected class, and you might, might, see how stupid you sound.

/I do stand partially corrected
//This is as dumb as your initial post
 
2021-05-24 3:39:46 PM  

Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?


Oof, you are really bad at this.
 
2021-05-24 3:40:21 PM  

Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day?


Rugbyjock. Arkieboy if you're old. Gorgor.

So many greats.
 
2021-05-24 3:40:34 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?

Oof, you are really bad at this.


And the sad part is, he is actually trying.
 
2021-05-24 3:42:12 PM  

severedtoe: the GOP always claims how much they love the constitution like its a sacred document, yet they are constantly trying to pass laws that directly run counter to the constitution and its amendments.


The GOP uses anything they can pick up at any given time to argue whatever needs to be argued at that instance to preserve or increase their power.  They neither have nor require any more consistency than that.

/I'm guessing you're aware of this.
 
2021-05-24 3:42:28 PM  

Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?


The nature of these is generally existential. So, when someone says, paraphrasing, "I don't think certain people have a right to exist", then, yeah, it can be viewed as threatening.
 
2021-05-24 3:44:15 PM  
Let's waste a bunch of time and money passing an unconstitutional law so we can earn STIGGINIT points instead of dealing with serious issues impacting the state. Yay Floriduh!
 
2021-05-24 3:45:21 PM  

Arkanaut: IMO the more important outcome of this is that it encourages liars to run for office and thus become "politicians".


We'll have more Greenes and Boeberts running for office. The cancer will continue to spread.
 
2021-05-24 3:46:05 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 3:46:38 PM  
Sorry, aarkieboy.

Credit where it's due.
 
2021-05-24 3:46:40 PM  

Kirkenhegelstein: Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day? We need to have him file to run for office in some small Florida city and just post photoshoot of DeSantis all day until he is banned and can sue.

Are you trying to summon rugbyjock or gorgor?  because those are two radically different animals.


Rugbyjock was the photoshop guy, gorgor was general wtf-ness.
 
2021-05-24 3:47:57 PM  

Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?


By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?
 
2021-05-24 3:48:20 PM  
I really don't understand how this is supposes to work at all. Are any of these companies based in Florida? Or do they even have major operations there? Since when do a state's business regulations have national effect? Are they really going to start mailing citations to silcon valley? And if the companies ignore them what reprecussions would there be?
 
2021-05-24 3:50:35 PM  
I'd like to announce my run for Governor of Florida.
 
2021-05-24 3:51:11 PM  

casual disregard: What is up with these crazy, evil folk willing to commit evil? I just don't get it.


Are you somehow blissfully unaware of the existence of conservatives?
 
2021-05-24 3:51:16 PM  

Gubbo: Ishkur: Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.

I mean that isn't what net neutrality is. But if it makes republicans care I'm happy to lie about it.


Net Neutrality is a brand prioritization issue. What the GOP didn't figure is that sites and ISPs would prioritize other brands over theirs.
 
2021-05-24 3:51:48 PM  
Fla: "We hereby fine Twitter for banning Congressman Rage McWwg1wga."

Twitter" LOL, gfy"
 
2021-05-24 3:53:13 PM  

Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBT posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBT posts?


If I create a website that is anti-LGBT I am free to ban pro-LGBT posts.  If I host it myself I can spew all the hatred that I want, and I can ban anyone I want.  THAT'S free speech.  What's not free speech is for the government to force me to host pro-LGBT (or anti-LGBT) sites.  It's not free speech if the gov't tells me whom I can and cannot ban.
 
2021-05-24 3:53:57 PM  

Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?


And why, pray tell, would California -- or any other state -- honor, acknowledge, or even give a shiat about Florida law?
 
2021-05-24 3:56:09 PM  

Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.


The actual law provides recourse for any individual in Florida that is censored on social media platforms.
 
2021-05-24 3:59:33 PM  

Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]


You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.
 
2021-05-24 4:00:05 PM  

Zafler: Kirkenhegelstein: Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day? We need to have him file to run for office in some small Florida city and just post photoshoot of DeSantis all day until he is banned and can sue.

Are you trying to summon rugbyjock or gorgor?  because those are two radically different animals.

Rugbyjock was the photoshop guy, gorgor was general wtf-ness.


For old times sake, because I was always amused/grossed out by the Gorgor links:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 4:00:54 PM  
The idea that large corporations have anything to do with "The Left" is so farking stupid that only a Republican would believe it. Those darn firebrands, anarchists, and effete intellectual snobs at 3M, Boeing, and General Dynamics have really pulled a woke fast one on us common clayers of the new West.
 
2021-05-24 4:01:21 PM  

Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?


just one that isn't from gqp fantasy land
 
2021-05-24 4:02:57 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


legally, apples and oranges. there's no discrimination in banning users for violating TOS that applies to all users.  (and i've never heard of a case where a court ruled that bakeries had to make political cakes for all).
 
2021-05-24 4:03:21 PM  

Gubbo: Is it possible that this was signed into law just to provide employment for lawyers?


So you agree with Liberals that the government stimulates job creation?
 
2021-05-24 4:03:54 PM  

Ishkur: Gubbo: Ishkur: Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.

I mean that isn't what net neutrality is. But if it makes republicans care I'm happy to lie about it.

Net Neutrality is a brand prioritization issue. What the GOP didn't figure is that sites and ISPs would prioritize other brands over theirs.


That also isn't what net neutrality was about.
 
2021-05-24 4:04:57 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.


Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?
 
2021-05-24 4:05:22 PM  
Twitter should ban DeSantis for shuts and gigs and then post a video on home page of Dorsey pissing on the fine when they get it.
 
2021-05-24 4:07:05 PM  
I'm starting to think Shaggy has a humiliation fetish.  He gets off on publicly humiliating himself.  It's the only answer to his posts in the poli tab.
 
2021-05-24 4:07:08 PM  

Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?


Its not about getting the money, its about looking like you are doing something, even if it fails horribly, even BETTER if it fails horribly..

Then you can say, look how I fought the libs and they cheated again, dont you hate that, Elect me again, and I'll get'em for sure next time!!
 
2021-05-24 4:08:00 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.


Twitter and Facebook are not the public square. The public square is the Internet.

Twitter and Facebook are private property. You use them only at their discretion. This goes also for Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, YouTube, Microsoft, or any other cloud service. You do not have a right to any of these things, and they have the sole right to ban, remove, or revoke your usage of them at any time for any reason.
 
2021-05-24 4:08:54 PM  

Gubbo: That also isn't what net neutrality was about.


That is ONLY what net neutrality is about.
 
2021-05-24 4:10:24 PM  
Step 1: State that I am running for some office in Florida
Step 2: Promote my platform that I am running to make Ron DeSantis stop performing oral sex on goats.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit?
 
2021-05-24 4:12:27 PM  

sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?


No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.
 
2021-05-24 4:18:21 PM  

Murkanen: Shaggy_C:

So we don't have a clear-cut constitutional answer whether or not the Baker must create a political cake.

It was a wedding cake, not a "political cake", and wedding cakes are a service he states he provides via his advertising material.


That is a very important point. The cake was a normal cake. They refused to fulfill the order because the customers were gay.

The other key is that the bakery is a public accomodation. Twitter is not, it is more akin to a club. You agree to a contract with Twitter when you register.

Now, we do probably need new categories and regulatory mechanisms for companies like Twitter and Facebook. Like it or not, they are a major part of society. But that needs to be done Federally, if not multinationally, and should not prevent them from establishing and enforcing terms of service like not encouraging a violent coup attempt.
 
2021-05-24 4:19:22 PM  

Murkanen: Shaggy_C:

If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

No it can't because bakeries are public facing companies, and social media companies require you to be enrolled via contract to use their services.

You claim to be in business.  How do you not know this massive, impossible to ignore difference between the two situations?


Dude it's Shaggy_C. Huuuge gaps in logic that even the Duke boys couldn't jump.
 
2021-05-24 4:21:25 PM  
I just learned about this game this weekend:
Fark user imageView Full Size

I haven't played but wonder if there is a politics category.
 
2021-05-24 4:22:03 PM  
Does this still have a theme park loophole so Bob Chapek doesn't have to beat ol' Ron to death with a set of mouse ears?
 
2021-05-24 4:23:21 PM  
I just love the blinding level of party allegiance that's still white-knighting for trump - while Trump is suing organizations for continuing to even use the Trump logo in political literature...
 
2021-05-24 4:23:34 PM  
Imagine if this caused Twitter and FB to block Florida from access in accordance with the law. Would Florida evolve back to a normal state without the hourly insanity injection?
 
2021-05-24 4:23:38 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.


And you can't just go on Twitter and start spouting off. You need to register and agree to their terms of service.
 
2021-05-24 4:25:08 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.


That interpretation was overruled in 1976, Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). In order for a private space to be considered a "public square," the private entity has to essentially be acting as a municipality.
 
2021-05-24 4:26:22 PM  

Ishkur: Hey DeSantis: You know what could've stopped deplatforming on social media?


Net Neutrality.


Wouldn't have done shiat.  All you've demonstrated is that you have no farking clue what net neutrality is.
 
2021-05-24 4:26:40 PM  

Nesher: Step 1: State that I am running for some office in Florida
Step 2: Promote my platform that I am running to make Ron DeSantis stop performing oral sex on goats.
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit?


#IdGoFundThat
 
2021-05-24 4:28:17 PM  

Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.


Your country sounds like it sucks
 
2021-05-24 4:30:12 PM  

lolmao500: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.


That's not quite what they said.

They said Twittler can't ban people from his feed because he was using it for official government communication.  Had he been keeping his personal twitter feed to non-government things (like "Hey, did Heinz screw with their recipie?  I swear the catsup tastes different since the steaks now taste like nasty charcoal"), then he could have built himself a safe space.
 
2021-05-24 4:31:34 PM  

Tman144: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.

That interpretation was overruled in 1976, Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). In order for a private space to be considered a "public square," the private entity has to essentially be acting as a municipality.


Not quite - that was about the inside of a shopping mall.

The privately owned public square is more Marsh v Alabama, which is still a standing ruling.
 
2021-05-24 4:34:13 PM  

Somaticasual: I just love the blinding level of party allegiance that's still white-knighting for trump - while Trump is suing organizations for continuing to even use the Trump logo in political literature...


Wait, what?
 
2021-05-24 4:38:01 PM  

MadHatter500: lolmao500: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

SCOTUS said  the president twitter couldnt ban people from seeing his account. Sounds like yeah, theres a constitutional right to be on twitter... for people at least.

That's not quite what they said.

They said Twittler can't ban people from his feed because he was using it for official government communication.  Had he been keeping his personal twitter feed to non-government things (like "Hey, did Heinz screw with their recipie?  I swear the catsup tastes different since the steaks now taste like nasty charcoal"), then he could have built himself a safe space.


Also SCOTUS never said that.

The District Court and Appeals Court said that.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision this year on the basis that the case was now moot (not commenting on the merits).
 
2021-05-24 4:39:01 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Tman144: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: sdd2000: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

Does that "public square" analogy also hold for the set of Fox and Friends as I would like to go on and tell everyone that Faux News is a real threat to democracy?

No, because you can't just go on the program and start talking.

The town square where I grew up was owned by the Lions Club - but they couldn't tell people what they could or couldn't say when in that square because it was the public space, even though it was privately owned.

That interpretation was overruled in 1976, Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). In order for a private space to be considered a "public square," the private entity has to essentially be acting as a municipality.

Not quite - that was about the inside of a shopping mall.

The privately owned public square is more Marsh v Alabama, which is still a standing ruling.


Quoting Justice Black, who wrote the Marsh opinion, "The question is, Under what circumstances can private property be treated as though it were public? The answer that Marsh gives is when that property has taken on All the attributes of a town, I. e., 'residential buildings, streets, a system of sewers, a sewage disposal plant and a "business block" on which business places are situated.' 326 U.S., at 502, 66 S.Ct., at 277. I can find nothing in Marsh which indicates that if one of these features is present, e. g., a business district, this is sufficient for the Court to confiscate a part of an owner's private property and give its use to people who want to picket on it."

A privately owned space is not sufficient, it specifically says that Marsh is a narrow opinion dealing with a situation where a private entity "was performing the full spectrum of municipal powers and stood in the shoes of the State." Just having a space open to the public is not nearly enough.
 
2021-05-24 4:45:26 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.


This is a stupid argument and has no bearing on reality.

They do not provide any government functions, nor are they contracted by the government to do any.

You are free to start your own site and compete with them and the government can't shut you down.  You can still go to the town square and talk.  The "town square" you're speaking of is hosted in private data centers by provate companies.

Just like I can remove you from my house if you start spouting non-sense or a 7-11 can kick you out for spouting objectionable non-sense, Facebook, Twitter, et al can kick you out.


Just because a majority of people communicate that way doesn't make it a government function.  Talk about slippery slope...

If Facebook must guarantee your right to free speech, than an ISP must guarantee my right to get to facebook, which means they can't shut off my service because I didn't pay my bill, because that would be violating my rights to the "town square."

How far down this rabbit hole are we supposed to go?  We have a right to facebook, so we can't lose internet access, power company must also make sure my power doesn't go out because it's my route to that town square.  A cell company can't cut my service.  Any outage is a violation to my free speech.
 
2021-05-24 4:46:59 PM  

Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]


americanhistory.si.eduView Full Size

"Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "
 
2021-05-24 4:49:08 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Somaticasual: I just love the blinding level of party allegiance that's still white-knighting for trump - while Trump is suing organizations for continuing to even use the Trump logo in political literature...

Wait, what?


I'm having a hell of a time finding the article, but the Trump org seems to be suing several GOP organizations for still using the logo in their pamphlets,etc. 

Basically, the perfect metaphor for the Trump campaign. He no longer cares outside of maintaining publicity, it's just the GOP hard liners that are still pushing the 2024/stolen election nonsense. His followers and lawyers have probably put more thought into conspiracies than Trump has put into his entire political "career"
 
2021-05-24 4:51:28 PM  
NO SANITY
NO SENSIBILITY
NO SERVICE

Seriously, with the mask rule and now this, this guy is so communist that Lenin is about to rise out of his little glass fish tank and tell him to knock it off.
 
2021-05-24 4:52:25 PM  
Gotdamn, I wanna move to FL and get kicked off Parler just to watch the backpedaling and Floridasplaining.
 
2021-05-24 4:53:22 PM  
Florida Man gonna Florida, man.
 
2021-05-24 4:56:28 PM  
Oh boy! All the Democratic politicians should immediately sign up over at Freeperville and start posting their asses off.
 
2021-05-24 4:57:16 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

/When political beliefs are covered under non-discrimination laws, you might have a point
//But they aren't
///So you don't


California Labor Code
Sec. 1101
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Sec. 1102
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
 
2021-05-24 5:00:12 PM  

The Perineum Falcon: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

They know it will be slapped down.  It is all for show for their cult.


Just one in a series of unconstitutional emotional issues signed by DeSantis to get him on the national radar and the short list for the R presidential nomination in 2024. He is calculating and relentless and needs to be stopped.
 
2021-05-24 5:00:23 PM  

Paul Baumer: Gotdamn, I wanna move to FL and get kicked off Parler just to watch the backpedaling and Floridasplaining.


I might run for county dog catcher or something just allow you and other farkers to live vicariously through me.
 
2021-05-24 5:01:52 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: GitOffaMyLawn: Hmm, nationalizing (OK, statizing) media.

Where have I heard of this before?

/ have to Godwin the thread somehow

Yeah, he's changed his mind about that.
[Fark user image image 586x114]


It seems like a lot of people (not meaning you) don't actually know what Godwin's Law is. It doesn't say "You can't compare things to Hitler" or "If you compare something to Hitler you automatically means you lost." All it says is that, the longer an internet argument proceeds, the more likely it becomes that Hitler will be referenced. In whatever capacity--Godwin makes no claims on the legitimacy or validity of the references themselves.

At least Godwin points out that, yeah, there are a heck of a lot of reasons to compare people to Nazis these days.
 
2021-05-24 5:01:52 PM  
Good thing Twitter is a microblogging site and not a social media company...
 
2021-05-24 5:04:23 PM  

Gonz: Grungehamster: Who was the farmer who kept posting NSFW content to the Fark Photoshop Contests back in the day?

Rugbyjock. Arkieboy if you're old. Gorgor.

So many greats.


ummm... I'm not a farmer...
 
2021-05-24 5:06:03 PM  

Tman144: Oh look, another "small government" conservative in favor of governmental control over private business.


This.  They aren't even consistent with their basic governing philosophy at this point (if they ever were).
 
2021-05-24 5:08:25 PM  

Epicedion: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

I know you're just giving a stupid hot take here, but you're not comparing apples with apples. What you're saying is that the cake shop should have to stand there and let some of their customers shiat on the floor.


I firmly believe that Americans should have the right to get schwifty.
 
2021-05-24 5:14:09 PM  

austerity101: It seems like a lot of people (not meaning you) don't actually know what Godwin's Law is. It doesn't say "You can't compare things to Hitler" or "If you compare something to Hitler you automatically means you lost."


Well.. those became corollaries later; I think the conflation is reasonable. And he explicitly said that his "goal was to hint that those who escalate a debate into Adolf Hitler or Nazi comparisons may be thinking lazily, not adding clarity or wisdom, and contributing to the decay of an argument over time", so what you're saying, while  100% true, is definitely missing some nuance.

To your point: 

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.
 
2021-05-24 5:15:27 PM  
Sooooo...other than kissing the orange one's smelly arse, what exactly is this blatantly unconstitutional law supposed to accomplish?  Ensure a job serving drinks at mar-a-lago after his term ends?

The GQP is losing voters and they know it.  They are going to get more and more desperate, like cornered rats on a sinking ship.

Desperate rats are dangerous ones, especially since so may of them are so diseased.
 
2021-05-24 5:17:36 PM  

Tman144: Shaggy_C: JokerMattly: You cannot discriminate against protected classes.
Guess what isnt a protected class in the US.

So, a person should be protected from being banned from a website if they make pro-LGBTblack posts, but they can be banned if they make anti-LGBTblack posts?

Yes, genius.


I am so f*cking sick of people treating homophobia like a legitimate and valid "difference of opinion." It isn't. You're bigots, homophobes.

Your post illustrates exactly why. If someone said, "Look, I just don't think Black people are equal to whites. That's my belief," most people would be like "F*ck off, racist." But someone sayd that about gays and suddenly it's, "Well, she was raised differently, it's what her religion says. That's her opinion," et cetera. It's infuriating and exhausting.

/F*ck your religion. It's not an excuse for sh*tty opinions.
 
2021-05-24 5:20:58 PM  

Ishkur: Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?

And why, pray tell, would California -- or any other state -- honor, acknowledge, or even give a shiat about Florida law?


Have you read the constitution? Full faith and credit. If a FL court issues an order granting a money judgment against Twitter California HAS to give it full faith.

Now that said the law is wildly unconstitutional and will get struck down but that was not the original question.
 
2021-05-24 5:22:00 PM  

kmfjd: Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?

just one that isn't from gqp fantasy land


The question was how they were going to collect the money. Not if the law was constitutional. Hint it's not.
 
2021-05-24 5:27:32 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: austerity101: It seems like a lot of people (not meaning you) don't actually know what Godwin's Law is. It doesn't say "You can't compare things to Hitler" or "If you compare something to Hitler you automatically means you lost."

Well.. those became corollaries later; I think the conflation is reasonable. And he explicitly said that his "goal was to hint that those who escalate a debate into Adolf Hitler or Nazi comparisons may be thinking lazily, not adding clarity or wisdom, and contributing to the decay of an argument over time", so what you're saying, while  100% true, is definitely missing some nuance.

To your point: 

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.


Yes, he suggested elsewhere that a lot of the people who are comparing things to Hitler are making facile or uselessly hyperbolic comments, but the law itself does not say this, and Godwin never claimed that such comparisons were automatically invalid, just that they often are. There's nothing wrong with regarding such comparisons with skepticism; there is, however, something wrong with dismissing them out of hand without consideration.
 
2021-05-24 5:33:42 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.


Again?
 
2021-05-24 5:33:58 PM  
It appears Americans have no clue about how these bakery cases really turned out. No, a bakery in the US isn't forced to make a cake for literally anyone who wants one. No, bakeries throughout the US weren't magically given the right to turn away gay customers for being gay by the Supreme Court or something. The laws are patchy and stupid, and the bakeries that were sued were ones in places where anti-queer discrimination was explicitly illegal. And the Colorado appeals ruling wasn't about whether the bakery had the right to discriminate, but whether the commission that dealt with their case was unfairly harsh toward their religious beliefs in the wording of their investigation and ruling--the court didn't say they weren't in violation, just that the commission overstepped their bounds in assessing the violation, thus rendering their findings moot.
 
2021-05-24 5:35:01 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: To your point:

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.


Sadly, I think it also reflects that people (generally) don't know very much history, so WWII is the only common ground people have or expect to have in an online argument.
 
2021-05-24 5:36:14 PM  

Arkanaut: IMO the more important outcome of this is that it encourages liars to run for office and thus become "politicians".


I thought that was a given in their party and especially FL.
 
2021-05-24 5:36:45 PM  

HighZoolander: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: To your point:

"But I do want to stress that the question of evil, understood historically, is bigger than party politics. GL [Godwin's Law] is about remembering history well enough to draw parallels - sometimes with Hitler or with Nazis, sure - that are deeply considered. That matter. Sometimes those comparisons are going to be appropriate, and on those occasions GL should function less as a conversation ender and more as a conversation starter."

The linked op-ed (by Godwin) is a pretty good read.

Sadly, I think it also reflects that people (generally) don't know very much history, so WWII is the only common ground people have or expect to have in an online argument.


It's also regarded as a universally unambiguous moral example, which makes it a good case example for moral debates for determining boundaries.
 
2021-05-24 5:37:05 PM  
So, as a Florida resident, I'd be perfectly fine with the social media companies completely cutting Florida off for a few days.  I'd be laughing my ass off as the blow back on DeSatan would be swift and really fun to watch.
 
2021-05-24 5:37:40 PM  

Ambivalence: Funny how they only care about protecting the free speech of politicians and not regular people.


They literally arrest regular people for free speech.  Case in point:

https://www.wuft.org/news/2021/05/13/​r​ebekah-jones-and-the-consequences-of-w​histleblowing/
 
2021-05-24 5:41:52 PM  
This is like the demented MAGAts who called other players every racist name in the forbidden book in their forum posts that, when banned for obvious reasons, claim 1st Amendment Rights are being quashed. No. This is a private comapny's game forum and you will NOT post anything of the kind. Ever. BANNED!

/ I did love that banhammer power but with great power came great responsibility and 2016-2017 I hit my limit ... thanks MAGAts.
// I began wielding the banhammer like an enraged drunken Thor.
 
2021-05-24 5:41:57 PM  
Fining social media companies in Florida, huh?

And what social media companies have their HQ in Florida? None that I can think of. What are you gonna do, drive to Silicon Valley with a plastic badge in your pocket, and try to arrest some nerds?

I'd like to see him try, actually. It would be funny to watch a half dozen security guards toss the farker out the front door, and watch him land on his face.

Clearly this is a stunt to curry favor with Donnie Dingus. Nobody has any right to a presence on social media. Especially not that mass-murdering fark. But the GOP wants that asshole to stage a miraculous comeback, so they'll come up with as much stupid shiat like this as possible to try to bring that reality to fruition.

/Vote blue in 2022
 
2021-05-24 5:45:35 PM  
Florida, you're doing it wrong. When you craft unconstitutional bills, you're supposed to punch down if you want that to last like a month. That's probably going straight to the courts way faster than any of those "have fun running over protesters" laws.
 
2021-05-24 5:45:57 PM  
No way this will hold up in court. Social media sites do not have to permit politicians speech any more than any other person's speech. Social Media companies are by definition private. They aren't under FCC rules for political ads for the actual posts a candidate makes.  If it were an Ad, they might have a chance for holding it up, but because it's actually their speech, it's completely different.
My guess is that twitter and similar sites will develop a new restricted class of twitter handle that all politicians will be required to use. If you make posts under a non-'registered politician" account, then they will be exempt.

Actually, I just realized, they'll just force politicians to pay money to have an account. I don't think they've thought their cunning plan all the way through
 
2021-05-24 5:53:07 PM  

Alien Robot: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

[americanhistory.si.edu image 481x374]
"Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "


Dude, do you even lawyer?
 
2021-05-24 6:01:22 PM  

Alien Robot: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

[americanhistory.si.edu image 481x374]
"Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "


This isn't the same thing. Woolworth's doesn't have a Terms of Service agreement you click "I agree" to every time you go to eat there. Twitter DOES have one when you sign up for an account. It's basically a "Fark around and find out" clause that keeps people from being abusive shiatheads online.

Before the Constitution was amended due to the Civil Rights movement, asshole business owners could kick out people just because of the color of their skin, religion, sexual orientation, country of origin, etc. Now they can't. However, these same businesses CAN kick people out for being abusive, obnoxious, violent assholes. That will never change. Twitter did the same thing with Lying Donny's account when he broke the rules he agreed to when he signed up.
 
2021-05-24 6:02:40 PM  
Aren't these the same douchebags that think a bakery should be able to refuse service to LGBTQ people?
 
2021-05-24 6:11:24 PM  

optikeye: Having facebook, twitter, fark, etc IP block the entire state of Florida with a splash screen explaining it's the Republican's wish. Would be lovely.


You know, this isn't entirely impossible.
Florida IP Address Blocks - XMyIP - IPv4 IP Addresses by State

So, it seems I have a project for this weekend. :)
 
2021-05-24 6:22:55 PM  
We need a better class of contrarians.
 
2021-05-24 6:25:38 PM  

Thrag: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

Bakeries are forced to do what now? You haven't the first farking clue about that case or the entire issue, do you?

It was a normal cake. The bakery had no problem taking the order. The decided later, too late to get another baker, they wouldn't fulfill it after finding out it was for a gay couple.

There, I've cured .0000000000000000000000000000000000000​00000000000000000000000000001 of your shameful farking ignorance.


Yeah, the issue was the bakery took not only the order, but a $500 deposit as well.  There's was no message.  It was a standard wedding cake.
 
2021-05-24 6:32:09 PM  
So have we hit the DeSantis trifecta yet?
 
2021-05-24 6:36:37 PM  

HurryHeinz: Aren't these the same douchebags that think a bakery should be able to refuse service to LGBTQ people?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 6:42:24 PM  

Latinwolf: So have we hit the DeSantis trifecta yet?


His pen is busy...
 
2021-05-24 7:02:44 PM  

Obama's Left Nut: Have you read the constitution? Full faith and credit. If a FL court issues an order granting a money judgment against Twitter California HAS to give it full faith.


Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Does the Constitution even say anything about corporations?

Does the Constitution even say anything about how states must bow to other state laws?
 
2021-05-24 7:18:12 PM  

Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?


You can't just go "I hereby declare a judgement" and expect to take money from a company.

There are rules, and having standing is one of the primary requisites to even get that far; Florida has none.
 
2021-05-24 7:19:57 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.


It's not the public square if it's owned by a private company.
 
2021-05-24 7:29:52 PM  

Alien Robot: scottydoesntknow: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

/When political beliefs are covered under non-discrimination laws, you might have a point
//But they aren't
///So you don't

California Labor Code
Sec. 1101
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Sec. 1102
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.


They aren't being banned for being Republicans, they're being banned for violating the terms of service.
 
2021-05-24 7:33:57 PM  

OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.


"Y'all sure about that?" -- Moscow Mitch
 
2021-05-24 7:34:21 PM  

Murkanen: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

It's not the public square if it's owned by a private company.


Marsh v Alabama, already covered - try to keep up.
 
2021-05-24 7:41:54 PM  
Is this a freedom of association issue?
 
2021-05-24 7:44:47 PM  
Private company . They make their own rules. DeSantis is an attention whore, Alien Robot is a moron. End of story.
 
2021-05-24 7:45:10 PM  
"Since you love voter ID laws so much, we can't accept just ANYONE's word they're an official candidate. They'll have to provide actual proof they are who they say they are. They'll need a birth certificate, photo ID, a bill proving your address, and a note from the doctor that was present during your birth. Oh, and the only registration site is in Harlem." 

Or, they could sell ads for the posts. "This pack of lies is brought to you by Pepsi. Enjoy something refreshing while being entertained by falsehoods."
 
2021-05-24 7:46:23 PM  
I think we'll have to conclude that DeSantis isn't just evil. He's the dumbest man in office anywhere in America.
 
2021-05-24 7:51:07 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Murkanen: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

It's not the public square if it's owned by a private company.

Marsh v Alabama, already covered - try to keep up.


I'm so tired of Internet lawyers citing Marsh v. Alabama as if it had any relevance whatsoever to the public square controversy. Jesus. It must've been a talking point on Stormfront.
 
2021-05-24 7:51:24 PM  
ISmartAllMyOwnPosts:

Marsh v Alabama, already covered - try to keep up.

Marsh doesn't say what you think it says.
 
2021-05-24 7:55:29 PM  

animal color: I think we'll have to conclude that DeSantis isn't just evil. He's the dumbest man in office anywhere in America.


I know people from California to NY to DC and they all think he's an asshole. I'm still not certain that he won't make it to President.
 
2021-05-24 7:59:59 PM  

Murkanen: Obama's Left Nut: Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?

By domesticating the judgment in California and foreclosing on their HQ.

Or by domesticating that judgment in any state the have a server farm and seizing the server farm.

Or by figuring out where they bank, domesticating the judgment in the state where that bank is headquartered and seizing the bank account.

Is three methods enough or do you need me to give you more?

You can't just go "I hereby declare a judgement" and expect to take money from a company.

There are rules, and having standing is one of the primary requisites to even get that far; Florida has none.


But that was not his question. His question was about COLLECTING the money. That presumes there is a judgment.

If his question was how are they going to get a judgment the answer Is they aren't. The law is unconstitutional.

Also I understand the concept of standing. I am a lawyer. Among many other things I advise clients on collecting money owed to them.
 
2021-05-24 8:08:09 PM  

optikeye: Having facebook, twitter, fark, etc IP block the entire state of Florida with a splash screen explaining it's the Republican's wish. Would be lovely.


so let's get a grassroots pressure campaign to make them do it. Start with Fark. No Floridians can post
 
2021-05-24 8:14:20 PM  

Murkanen: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts:

Marsh v Alabama, already covered - try to keep up.

Marsh doesn't say what you think it says.


Don't bother. I already cited the case showing what Marsh actually means (including a quote from the Judge who wrote the Marsh opinion) a few posts back, but apparently they are just ignoring it to keep saying the same BS.
 
2021-05-24 8:23:06 PM  

Alien Robot: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

[americanhistory.si.edu image 481x374]
"Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "


Race, gender, religion and other classes are protected from discrimination under the US Constitution and it is sad you need a Canadian to explain this to you.
 
2021-05-24 8:26:27 PM  
DeShiathead wants social media companies to be accountable but won't hold insurrectionists and liars accountable.

I guess Matt Gaetz can now openly solicit 17 year olds for sex.

DeShiathead is running for President and is trying to hit all of the Trumper hot buttons.  He's very popular down here.
 
2021-05-24 8:47:04 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-24 8:52:00 PM  

ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Murkanen: ISmartAllMyOwnPosts: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

You have free speech rights in the public square, even if a private company owns the square.

Today, twitter and facebook are the public square.

This is going to go to court, because it needs to be settled in law.

It's not the public square if it's owned by a private company.

Marsh v Alabama, already covered - try to keep up.


Is the only newspaper in town a "public square" counselor? How about a cable news channel?
 
2021-05-24 9:01:26 PM  

Alien Robot: scottydoesntknow: Shaggy_C: OptionC: So, a blatantly unconstitutional law that will be immediately tossed by a federal court.  Seems about right.

Why is it unconstitutional? If bakeries are forced to create cakes with politically-charged messages because "public company must serve the public and not discriminate" one could argue that a company which manages an online bulletin board similarly "serves the public" and cannot discriminate on what politically-charged speech is allowed or not.

Trying to be consistent creates a bit of a conundrum here.

Wow. This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

/When political beliefs are covered under non-discrimination laws, you might have a point
//But they aren't
///So you don't

California Labor Code
Sec. 1101
No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

Sec. 1102
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.


That language doesn't appear to prevent a social media site from banning a user for a violation of the terms of service, even if that user is an employee of the social media site.
 
2021-05-24 9:23:27 PM  

mrshowrules: Alien Robot: Walker: They're private companies, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named "Ron" if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be on Twitter.

[Fark user image image 756x960]

[americanhistory.si.edu image 481x374]
"Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "

Race, gender, religion and other classes are protected from discrimination under the US Constitution and it is sad you need a Canadian to explain this to you.


Mr. Rules:

Mr. Robot was under the impression that Republican politicians were a protected class.  Based on recent history, he could be forgiven for holding that belief.
 
2021-05-24 9:26:36 PM  
 
2021-05-24 9:29:34 PM  
My theory is that it's all for show. He's definitely thinking about running for president in 2024 and he doing this stuff to pander to the Trump base.
 
2021-05-24 9:31:27 PM  

razrez75: I know it's been said upthread, but PLEASE block Florida. Pretty pretty please?

Gosh it sure would be nice if all the major social media apps blocked FL...


Half of Floridians, or roughly 11 million people, aren't subhuman scumbags. In fact, we're quite good people.
 
2021-05-24 9:41:21 PM  

Ishkur: So Florida is going to sue Facebook and Twitter -- two companies based in California -- $250k a day for deplatforming Republicans?

And how do they expect to collect that money, exactly?


The hearses aren't too busy with a hoax, so they should be able to scrounge a few up to go make an in person pickup? They're like armored trucks, but without the armor, right?
 
2021-05-24 9:42:56 PM  

Alien Robot: "Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "


Saying things like this makes you look stupid.
 
2021-05-24 9:52:32 PM  

sdd2000: Someone should "declare" themselves a candidate and post on OAN and Fox's media feed in comments and the immediately sue them when their posts are blocked.


That sounds hilarious.
 
2021-05-24 10:33:50 PM  
Public accommodation laws apply differently to member's only businesses, and generally only apply to a physical presence.

Websites were specifically declared to not be places of public accommodation (as recently as Gil v winn-dixie) and do not need to adhere to things physical businesses do (such as the ADA).
 
2021-05-24 11:06:20 PM  
It's funny how all the arguments about how 'Net Neutrality violated the precept that a person can do what they want with their property have all been forgotten now that the person is Twitter and they're deciding whether Trump is allowed to use their property. Apparently, I have rights to your property now in Florida.
 
2021-05-24 11:17:40 PM  

Skeleton Man: Half of Floridians, or roughly 11 million people, aren't subhuman scumbags. In fact, we're quite good people.


Aha!

This is a logical fallacy.

Good people don't post on Fark.
 
2021-05-24 11:56:01 PM  

thorpe: Alien Robot: "Woolworths is a private company, they can ban whoever they want. They can ban all guys named 'Ron' if they want to. You have no Constitutional right to be eat at the lunch counter at Woolworths. "

Saying things like this makes you look stupid.


Pretty sure him being incredibly stupid is the cause of that.
 
2021-05-25 12:15:28 AM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: "Block all IPs and phones from Florida." -- Jack Dorsey

Won't happen but would be funny


BugBunnyFlorida.gif
 
2021-05-25 3:31:12 AM  

ParadoxDice: "Since you love voter ID laws so much, we can't accept just ANYONE's word they're an official candidate. They'll have to provide actual proof they are who they say they are. They'll need a birth certificate, photo ID, a bill proving your address, and a note from the doctor that was present during your birth. Oh, and the only registration site is in Harlem."

Or, they could sell ads for the posts. "This pack of lies is brought to you by Pepsi. Enjoy something refreshing while being entertained by falsehoods."


Add in Tax Records.
 
2021-05-25 3:47:11 AM  

kpaxoid: Mr. Robot was under the impression that Republican politicians were a protected class.


I quoted California labor law stating exactly that.
 
2021-05-25 5:31:37 AM  
We want to stop infringements on free speech by regulating what private companies can publish.
 
2021-05-25 8:41:28 AM  
pics.me.meView Full Size
 
2021-05-25 10:08:37 AM  

Skeleton Man: razrez75: I know it's been said upthread, but PLEASE block Florida. Pretty pretty please?

Gosh it sure would be nice if all the major social media apps blocked FL...

Half of Floridians, or roughly 11 million people, aren't subhuman scumbags. In fact, we're quite good people.


I was born and raised in Florida, and moved away when I joined the Army. About 90% of my family still lives there, and they are, almost to a person, evangelical right-wing nutjobs. A social media timeout would do them all some good.

My apologies to the 49.19% who had the good sense to vote for Gillum. You don't deserve such a terrible governor. Please thank anyone who voted for a third party candidate as they could very easily have swung the results in 2018.
 
2021-05-25 11:04:34 AM  

dildo tontine: How many lawyers will 250k a day hire to sue the shiat out of Florida? I am guessing quite a few.


Roughly a dozen Ted Olsons (per company).

Fark user imageView Full Size

 
2021-05-25 1:21:36 PM  

abb3w: dildo tontine: How many lawyers will 250k a day hire to sue the shiat out of Florida? I am guessing quite a few.

Roughly a dozen Ted Olsons (per company).

[Fark user image 608x415]


Ok, so did you find that or make it? I'm trying to figure out what triggered that to be made.
 
2021-05-25 1:56:55 PM  

Zafler: Ok, so did you find that or make it?


Find.

Zafler: I'm trying to figure out what triggered that to be made.


A whackjob filing a $2 Undecillion Lawsuit.

The XKCD comic's spin-off never regular column "What If" hasn't been updated recently, and eventually got further expanded into a book, but if you don't want to spend any money the archives are a fun trawl.

Randall Monroe also wrote "Thing Explainer" and "How To", which seem similarly absurd excellent presents to provide young children.
 
2021-05-25 2:48:14 PM  

abb3w: Zafler: Ok, so did you find that or make it?

Find.

Zafler: I'm trying to figure out what triggered that to be made.

A whackjob filing a $2 Undecillion Lawsuit.

The XKCD comic's spin-off never regular column "What If" hasn't been updated recently, and eventually got further expanded into a book, but if you don't want to spend any money the archives are a fun trawl.

Randall Monroe also wrote "Thing Explainer" and "How To", which seem similarly absurd excellent presents to provide young children.


Yea I thought I had read them all, apparently I missed that one.
 
Displayed 251 of 251 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.