DeSantis proposal would protect candidates like Trump from being banned on socia

[Texacon]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215047368

 soothsayer (32,188 posts)


DeSantis proposal would protect candidates like Trump from being banned on social media

Miami Herald
@MiamiHerald
ICYMI: A proposal from Gov. Ron DeSantis would penalize social media companies for blocking politicians like former President Trump — even if they incite violence.

DeSantis proposal would protect candidates like Trump from being banned on social media
miamiherald.com

https://t.co/T6NcGzu0MG?amp=1

11:30 AM · Feb 3, 2021

Fiendish Thingy (6,204 posts)

2. What punishment could a governor legally inflict on a global corporation? Nt

Baitball Blogger (37,445 posts)

4. De Santis is trying to dictate to a private corporation?

What happened to free market?

SidDithers (44,061 posts)

6. Doesn't the Miami Herald note that the Governor's proposal is unconstitutional?...


The First Amendment
@USConst_Amend_I
This would violate me. Companies have the First Amendment right to determine what speech is conveyed—or not—on their websites. Imposing liability based on that speech is unconstitutional.

The Columbia Bugle 🇺🇸
@ColumbiaBugle
Replying to @ColumbiaBugle
.@GovRonDeSantis: "Under our proposal, if a technology company de-platforms a candidate for elected office in Florida during an election that company will face a daily fine of $100k until the candidate's access to the platform is restored." 3/

DUmmies, so many questions for you, please come answer them;

1.  Does this sentiment you're sharing about these companies having carte blanche to silence people because of the free market carry over to ... bakeries?

2.  Does it carry over to companies that don't want to enforce mask mandates?

3.  Does it also include the rights of the NFL owners to stop protests by their players while they are 'on the clock?'

4.  Does it include sites like Parler?

5.  Do you really think the governor of a state can't regulate a business that is operating in their state?

I'm not asking for a friend, I'm asking for me, because I really would like to know.

KC

[DLR Pyro]

@MiamiHerald
ICYMI: A proposal from Gov. Ron DeSantis would penalize social media companies for blocking politicians like former President Trump — even if they incite violence.

Show me one post on social media where President Trump advocated violence.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Either social media is a forum - as so stated by their sworn testimony to Congress and seeking protection under S203 - or they are a publisher.

If the latter, their executives are legally responsible for every copyright violation and pedophile using their platforms (and there are a lot of pedos on social media people are continually reporting without resolution).

If the former, then the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of citizens just the same as if a private entity violated your rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

[franksolich]

Either social media is a forum - as so stated by their sworn testimony to Congress and seeking protection under S203 - or they are a publisher.

If the latter, their executives are legally responsible for every copyright violation and pedophile using their platforms (and there are a lot of pedos on social media people are continually reporting without resolution).

If the former, then the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of citizens just the same as if a private entity violated your rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

That is my point exactly, but you beat me to it.

The solution is s-o-o-o-o-o-o obvious.  Either these social media are platforms for everybody and anybody to use, hence excepting them from libel laws and damages, or by deciding who can post, and what they can post, they are private publishers subject to laws against libel.

[Texacon]

Boy, we've got a winner here.

Clash City Rocker (1,850 posts)

11. Trying to use government power to interfere with a private corporation?

Sounds like socialism to me.

I don’t know any social media companies are located in Florida, so I don’t see how they could do anything. This just appears to be a way to suck up to Trump.

Can you spell;

OSHA?
EPA?

Or any other myriad of governmental agencies with HUGE reach over corporations and no, contrary to your beliefs, not all the things that are 'laws' or enforceable items, are GOOD!

A water plant in Alaska that was treating water from a river was fined and shut down for a bit many years ago because they weren't reaching the percentage of 'cleaner' water when they supplied it to those drinking it.  The reason?  The river was SO clean they couldn't get the percentages down they needed to.  The solution?  They went upstream and 'dirtied' the water and then cleaned it when it hit their plant.  The government was then satisfied the water plant was cleaning the water properly and let them continue.

Thing is, the water they were then providing wasn't as clean as before.  Gee, that government stuff is SO smaht!

KC

[DLR Pyro]

Either social media is a forum - as so stated by their sworn testimony to Congress and seeking protection under S203 - or they are a publisher.

If the latter, their executives are legally responsible for every copyright violation and pedophile using their platforms (and there are a lot of pedos on social media people are continually reporting without resolution).

If the former, then the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of citizens just the same as if a private entity violated your rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

This current government has zero interest in protecting the rights of those who have opinions and values that differ from their own.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

This current government has zero interest in protecting the rights of those who have opinions and values that differ from their own.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[DLR Pyro]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Ahh, be careful with your words. 

Since noon on January 20, 2021, that type of talk is considered by the left and the media (redundant) to be seditious and inciting an insurrection to overthrow of the duly elected (cough, cough) government in power...

[DUmpDiver]

SidDithers (44,061 posts)

6. Doesn't the Miami Herald note that the Governor's proposal is unconstitutional?...


The First Amendment
@USConst_Amend_I
This would violate me. Companies have the First Amendment right to determine what speech is conveyed—or not—on their websites. Imposing liability based on that speech is unconstitutional.

So a private company like a bakery has a right to decide what speech in conveyed on a wedding cake?

[thundley4]

"Under our proposal, if a technology company de-platforms a candidate for elected office in Florida during an election that company will face a daily fine of $100k until the candidate's access to the platform is restored."

Isn't this exactly what the DUmmies have been crying about for years? They have wanted this, but they just don't realize it. This is the "Fairness Doctrine" applied to social media.