So what... Time also has named Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957) and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) as their Person of the Year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#Controversial_choices DeSantis is in such great company with this "honor".
And in the article, they wrote such glowing things about Hitler, did they? "His Approach Worked". And he's the only governor, as well
Actually they wrote glowing things about all of these characters. But DeSantis does not even measure up enough to be "Person of the Year" -- he barely qualifies to make the 100 Influential People list. Sort of being a dictator-lite.
They wrote glowing things about Hitler? Do you have the article? So first you were like "Adolf Hitler" was also a Time Person of the Year, and then you're like "DeSantis isn't even a person of the year and barely (no proof) qualifies to make 100 influential list." I knew you'd be butt hurt about this (you often are), but sometimes you make me laugh with your sheer stupidity.
DeSantis' "social media law": So unconstitutional, even a Trump-appointed Judge voted to strike it down. This is how DeSantis' Florida spends your tax dollars -- on lawyers for his endless string of court case losses to push his narrative in positioning his 2024 Presidential run. Never on anything practical like actually addressing the home insurance industry issues in Florida. Appeals court: Florida law on social media unconstitutional https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a...w-on-social-media-unconstitutional/ar-AAXCXxT ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (AP) — A Florida law intended to punish social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Monday, dealing a major victory to companies who had been accused by GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis of discriminating against conservative thought. A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that it was overreach for DeSantis and the Republican-led Florida Legislature to tell the social media companies how to conduct their work under the Constitution's free speech guarantee. “Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can't tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it,” said Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in the opinion. “We hold that it is substantially likely that social media companies — even the biggest ones — are private actors whose rights the First Amendment protects.” The ruling upholds a similar decision by a Florida federal district judge on the law, which was signed by DeSantis in 2021. It was part of an overall conservative effort to portray social media companies as generally liberal in outlook and hostile to ideas outside of that viewpoint, especially from the political right. “Some of these massive, massive companies in Silicon Valley are exerting a power over our population that really has no precedent in American history," DeSantis said during a May 2021 bill-signing ceremony. "One of their major missions seems to be suppressing ideas.” However, the appeals panel ruled that the tech companies’ actions were protected, with Judge Newsom writing that Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and others are “engaged in constitutionally protected expressive activity when they moderate and curate the content that they disseminate on their platforms.” There was no immediate response to emails Monday afternoon from DeSantis' press secretary or communications director on the ruling. DeSantis is running for reelection this year and eyeing a potential run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. He was the first governor to sign a bill like this into law, although similar ones have been proposed in other states. One of those, in Texas, was allowed to go into effect by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the tech companies involved there are asking for emergency U.S. Supreme Court review on whether to block it. No decision on that was immediately released. The Computer & Communications Industry Association, a nonprofit group representing tech and communications companies, said the ruling represents victory for Internet users and free speech in general — especially as it relates to potentially offensive content. “When a digital service takes action against problematic content on its own site — whether extremism, Russian propaganda, or racism and abuse — it is exercising its own right to free expression,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers in a statement. As enacted, the law would give Florida’s attorney general authority to sue companies under the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. It would also allow individual Floridians to sue social media companies for up to $100,000 if they feel they’ve been treated unfairly. The bill targeted social media platforms that have more than 100 million monthly users, which include online giants as Twitter and Facebook. But lawmakers carved out an exception for the Walt Disney Co. and their apps by including that theme park owners wouldn’t be subject to the law. The law would require large social media companies to publish standards on how it decides to “censor, deplatform, and shadow ban.” But the appeals court rejected nearly all of the law's mandates, save for a few lesser provisions in the law. “Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive. When platforms choose to remove users or posts, deprioritize content in viewers’ feeds or search results, or sanction breaches of their community standards, they engage in First-Amendment-protected activity,” Newsom wrote for the court.
Right, but the Orlando Sentinel you post all the time has quality content. This is meaningless, unless it was someone you worshipped. Then it would be the best thing since sliced bread, and you'd be here trumpeting about it.
It appears that DeSantis' favorite state AG is incapable of even reading a decision and understanding it. However this is the level of poor cognitive ability we have come to expect from his administration. ‘Did You Read It?’: Florida AG Heckled for Praising Her Own ‘Near Complete Loss’ Over Conservative Social Media Law Deemed Unconstitutional Under First Amendment https://lawandcrime.com/first-amend...eemed-unconstitutional-under-first-amendment/ Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) praised a federal court decision blocking most of the Sunshine State’s new self-styled anti-censorship social media law. Moody is a named defendant in the lawsuit challenging the law. She has previously praised the effort by Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) administration to exert strong government oversight and regulation over certain social media companies. “We are pleased the court recognized the state’s authority to rein in social media companies and upheld major portions of Florida’s law leading the way in doing so,” Moody tweeted on Monday afternoon. “We will continue to vigorously defend Florida’s authority to demand accountability from Big Tech.” The attorney general’s effusive response to the court’s decision, however, was criticized by legal experts who pointed out that the core of the law was actually kept on ice due to First Amendment concerns. Specifically, Florida is still blocked from punishing companies like Facebook and Twitter who “deplatform” political candidates. Only minor portions of the law were allowed to take effect. University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck categorized Moody’s response to the decision as “quite a take.” Vladeck went on to say that the ruling comes “from a deeply conservative Eleventh Circuit panel (i.e., judges most likely to be sympathetic)” and noted that the appellate opinion “unanimously kept the key parts of Florida’s law on hold because they’re “substantially likely” to *violate* the First Amendment.” In June 2021, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction–barring the law, in its entirety, from taking effect. “The legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal,” the lower court said. “Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest.” On Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit largely kept Hinkle’s injunction in place. The law, SB 7072, is made up of 12 substantive statutory provisions–amendments and additions–to the Florida Statutes. The appeals court affirmed the injunction for seven of those subsections and vacated the injunction for five. The decisions on what parts of the law are allowed to stand and which parts will continue to be barred were made on the basis of what the court deemed to be their likely constitutionality. While numerically a mixed bag, the ruling decidedly blocks more of the law than it allows to stand and the opinion itself harshly upbraids the State of Florida for attempting to violate the First Amendment. “Not in their wildest dreams could anyone in the Founding generation have imagined Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or TikTok,” Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, a Donald Trump appointee, begins. “But ‘whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary when a new and different medium for communication appears.'” The opinion sketches out why SB 7072 is mostly unconstitutional: We hold that it is substantially likely that social-media companies—even the biggest ones—are “private actors” whose rights the First Amendment protects, that their so-called “content-moderation” decisions constitute protected exercises of editorial judgment, and that the provisions of the new Florida law that restrict large platforms’ ability to engage in content moderation unconstitutionally burden that prerogative. We further conclude that it is substantially likely that one of the law’s particularly onerous disclosure provisions—which would require covered platforms to provide a “thorough rationale” for each and every content-moderation decision they make—violates the First Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that the companies are entitled to a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of those provisions. The opinion goes on to allow Florida to enforce three subsections that require companies to publish certain non-controversial information, provide users with certain data if they ask for it, and tell political candidates about certain advertising policies. But the court itself, on its own terms, minimizes what’s left for Florida here. “Taking stock: We conclude that social-media platforms’ content-moderation activities—permitting, removing, prioritizing, and deprioritizing users and posts—constitute ‘speech’ within the meaning of the First Amendment,” Newsom goes on. “All but one of S.B. 7072’s operative provisions implicate platforms’ First Amendment rights.” The judge goes on to offer several lectures on free speech and social media–preemptively warning that this section of the opinion “would be too obvious to mention if it weren’t so often lost or obscured in political rhetoric,” an implicit rebuke to certain politicians who have offered increasingly distorted understandings of what, exactly, constitutes protected speech under First Amendment jurisprudence. “No one has an obligation to contribute to or consume the content that the platforms make available,” Newsom notes. “And correlatively, while the Constitution protects citizens from governmental efforts to restrict their access to social media, no one has a vested right to force a platform to allow her to contribute to or consume social-media content.” The opinion also holds out the distinct possibility that the minor provisions they allowed to stand for now will prove to be “unduly burdensome” and might eventually get struck down anyway. Moody’s praise for the decision—which essentially guts Florida’s efforts to rein in social media companies’ ability to censor and moderate certain content and users—did not go unnoticed. Moody, for her part, has also supported similar legislation, based on SB 7072, in Texas–notably by filing an amicus brief in support of the Lone Star State’s law. She would later post about her support for the Texas law on Twitter. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit famously upheld that law earlier this month. DeSantis and Moody, in recent briefs, unsuccessfully pressed Newsom and the other other judges on the panel to vacate the entirety of the SB 7072 injunction by citing to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling. In a turnabout being fair play situation, the plaintiffs seeking to overturn the Texas law immediately filed a motion citing the 11th Circuit’s Monday decision with the U.S. Supreme Court.