Industry groups sue to stop Florida’s new social media law Yes, the one with the theme park exception https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/27/...uit-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional Two tech industry organizations have sued Florida over its newly passed rules for social networks. NetChoice and the CCIA — which represent Amazon, Google, Intel, Samsung, Facebook, and other tech giants — say SB 7072 violates private companies’ constitutional rights. They’re asking a court to prevent the law from taking effect, calling it a “frontal assault on the First Amendment.” SB 7072, which Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed earlier this week, restricts how large social apps and websites can moderate user-generated content. It makes banning any Florida political candidate or “journalistic enterprise” unlawful, lets users sue if they believe they were banned without sufficient reason, requires an option to “opt out” of sorting algorithms, and places companies that break the law on an “antitrust violator blacklist” that bars them from doing business with public entities in Florida. Notably, it includes an exception for companies that operate a theme park. NetChoice and the CCIA say SB 7072 conflicts with both constitutional protections and federal Section 230 rules. “As private businesses, Plaintiffs’ members have the right to decide what content is appropriate for their sites and platforms,” their complaint says. “The Act requires members to display and prioritize user-generated content that runs counter to their terms, policies, and business practices; content that will likely offend and repel their users and advertisers; and even content that is unlawful, dangerous to public health and national security, and grossly inappropriate for younger audiences.” The lawsuit claims Florida lawmakers and DeSantis specifically tailored the law to punish services whose moderation policies they disagreed with, while adding the arbitrary theme park exception to pacify Disney, Comcast NBCUniversal, and a handful of other big companies. “The law is crony capitalism masquerading as consumer protection,” said NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo in a statement. The law’s supporters argue it fights “deplatforming” of users based on political speech, saying social networks have “morphed into the town square” and become public spaces. Courts have contradicted the latter claim outside extremely specific exceptions, determining that Section 230 mostly lets social networks make their own moderation decisions — and states can’t simply supersede that federal rule. However, the Florida bill let lawmakers and DeSantis signal support for a Republican backlash against Silicon Valley, whether or not it actually takes effect.
Trump has an entire press office and staff dedicated to him while President and anytime he chose to speak publicly he ws covered by every single media outlet. For him to complain that twitter banned him and silenced him is what a moron with a low IQ would say or a whiny vagina... "I have 99 toys but you won't let me have that one!!!"
hey morons... there are multiple things section 230 does. you all need to think outside of NYT group think. Fact... A. Yes 230 protects... for instance... . Elitetrader's owner is protected An asshole here wrote that I killed my mother for inheritance money during Covid. It was a lie, as she was locked down in a nursing home when she died. That is pretty serious defamation... I can't sue Baron ( I would not anyway) for that defamation on this site because he is protected in part by section 230. But I could sue that douchebag. Argument.... But... what if Baron allowed that comment and other defamatory comments against me to stand but removed all comments by me and others defending me? At some point... does not logic, legal principles and equity indicate that Baron should be liable because by editing away one entire side .... Baron is not providing a neutral and open forum but using his forum to defame me? You all are so binary and moronic on these issues. There is a legit and important legal argument to be made that once you start editing for viewpoints you should be held responsible for the liability that may cause.
You cannot sue Baron because Baron has no liability and would not be held liable by the law.. if an asshole says you killed your mom, why would you sue Baron??? Only if you repeatedly told Baron to take it down and such and he refused and said he beleive you killed your mom so it was staying up there. I doubt 230 is needed for any good lawyer to throw out a lawsuit against ET for what someone posted... ET did not defame you...... so yes you can sue the douchebag but not ET.
Simmer down Oswald. Two of the elements of libel are IDENTIFICATION and HARM. Since we don't know who 'jem' really is, and you suffer no real harm, your claim would fail hard.
The point we are telling you is that there is not a legitimate legal argument, you just wish there was one. I don’t understand why you don’t understand social media companies are not public domain, even if you think they act as such. They are private companies. As long as they are not violating discrimination laws, they have the right under the first amendment to choose what content to allow on their site. There is an important - very important - point to be made on both the 1st and 14th amendments in this matter. That is true. Private companies have the right to develop and protect their “brand.” If they don’t want to be associated with misinformation and hate speech then that is their right to remove that content from their property. And I get that free association isn’t an easy legal concept to understand but if you don’t understand something should you really even be talking about it?
Your response is so off base. We are discussing why I think there is merit to De Santis proposal and why I think changes should be made. We are not saying you could win a suit against these companies now. duh.
you are an idiot making a useless point. It was an example... some might say a hypothetical. I said I would never sue Baron anyway...
I wasn't suggesting Baron would be your target. I was referencing the person that actually made the comments. Hypothetical or otherwise. Un-bunch your panties Oswald.
And that moron speaks of dodging local taxes while living in South America... I was not going to sue him either. In fact I have never sued anyone on my own behalf. Even though I could quite easily. As I said it was a hypothetical. You admonitions and your comments were irrelevant.