Florida passes law to stop social media companies from permanent bans

I don't have a handbag or the type of case your wife most likely has you asswipe... you took what I actually said and bullshitted your ass off.

and more bullshit from you... I am a bit skeptical of DeSantis because it seems the bushes support him.

You are another leftist dumb fuck who does not understand most of us not on the left think for ourselves...we actually value freedom.


UsualName said:
What a foul mouth for someone who has a cell phone case that doubles as a handbag. You are the most confused person I have ever seen. That diatribe about about how I’m supposed to support circumventing the first and fourteenth amendment because you have a hard on for Ronald McDonald DeSantis is a joke. DeSantis and the republicans in Florida wrote that anti constitutional law to service one man and one man only, Donald Trump. Get a fucking clue.
More...
 
jem said:
I don't have a handbag or the type of case your wife most likely has you asswipe... you took what I actually said and bullshitted your ass off.

and more bullshit from you... I am a bit skeptical of DeSantis because it seems the bushes support him.

You are another leftist dumb fuck who does not understand most of us not on the left think for ourselves...we actually value freedom.
More...

You don’t value freedom, you’re changeable and convenient. Like I said, there is nothing behind this law other than the service of one goober meatball, Donald Trump. A man universally banned from social media for inciting a riot with the intent to stop the legal transition of government. Fuck him, the insurrectionists, Ron DeSantis and the Republican perverts in Florida’s state legislature.
 
You one party Pravda loving morons willing to lose our freedoms... morons..

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."


---
This is not about Trump you TDS morons.
Why would De Santis want Trump to get in his way. Did you see what Trump did to Pence?

You all are so brainwashed iou don't / can't think for yourselves... its all CNN and NYT and the Wapo group think.




UsualName said:
You don’t value freedom, you’re changeable and convenient. Like I said, there is nothing behind this law other than the service of one goober meatball, Donald Trump. A man universally banned from social media for inciting a riot with the intent to stop the legal transition of government. Fuck him, the insurrectionists, Ron DeSantis and the Republican perverts in Florida’s state legislature.
More...
 
Last edited:
If these Silicon valley biased sites(or any type of bias in editing wherever they are from) are going to edit the content on their sites by burying hiding or eliminating once side of a public debate i....

They themselves are content providers... like newspapers or the authors themselves. The act of editing with bias ... is content creation.



They therefore should not be protected as a neutral provider of an open forum.






https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-speculation-on-man-made-coronavirus-origins/

Facebook to Allow Speculation on ‘Man-Made’ Coronavirus Origins

Facebook announced Wednesday it will no longer remove claims addressing the possible origins of the coronavirus and whether it is man-made or manufactured.

The policy change came on the same day President Joe Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to “redouble their efforts” to investigate the origin of the virus, despite ending a State Department investigation under former President Donald Trump seeking the same goal, as Breitbart News reported.




 
Last edited:
jem said:
If these Silicon valley biased sites(or any type of bias in editing wherever they are from) are going to edit the content on their sites by burying hiding or eliminating once side of a public debate i....

They themselves are content providers... like newspapers or the authors themselves. The act of editing with bias ... is content creation.



They therefore should not be protected as a neutral provider of an open forum.






https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-speculation-on-man-made-coronavirus-origins/

Facebook to Allow Speculation on ‘Man-Made’ Coronavirus Origins

Facebook announced Wednesday it will no longer remove claims addressing the possible origins of the coronavirus and whether it is man-made or manufactured.

The policy change came on the same day President Joe Biden ordered U.S. intelligence agencies to “redouble their efforts” to investigate the origin of the virus, despite ending a State Department investigation under former President Donald Trump seeking the same goal, as Breitbart News reported.
More...


First amendment... whether it is a newspaper or social media site.

Are you going to sue FOX news because they don't cover democratic candidates??

This is more pussification of America...

The protection is in the 1st Amendment of..... the CONSTITUTION. SO yes they are protected.
 
I am simply restating current 1st amendment law.

(and explaining why content editing sites should not be granted the protection of a open forum because they are not.)

---
Are you a truly open forum?
a. if yes... don't edit for content and you are protected from defamation suits.
b if no... (you edit your content) .. then no protection from suits.

its the difference between elitetrader and the New York Times.

Elitetrader is content neutral... so its protected.
New Times is not... so it is liable for content.

--

No one is forcing facebook to cover anybody..
its the editing for content which should take them out of the
category.. they are in.





El OchoCinco said:
First amendment... whether it is a newspaper or social media site.

Are you going to sue FOX news because they don't cover democratic candidates??

This is more pussification of America...

The protection is in the 1st Amendment of..... the CONSTITUTION. SO yes they are protected.
More...
 
Last edited:
jem said:
I am restating current 1st amendment law.
you are totally wrong...

---
Are you truly open forum?
a. if yes... don't edit for content and you are protected from defamation suits.
b if no... (you edit your content) .. then no protection from suits.

its the difference between elitetrader and the New York Times.

Elitetrader is content neutral... so it protected.
New Times is not... so it is liable for content.

--

No one is forcing facebook to cover anybody..
its the editing for content which should take them out of the
category.. they are in.
More...

Lol. Everything here is shiite. Total waste of time.
 
jem said:
I am simply restating current 1st amendment law.

(and explaining why content editing sites should not be granted the protection of a open forum because they are not.)

---
Are you a truly open forum?
a. if yes... don't edit for content and you are protected from defamation suits.
b if no... (you edit your content) .. then no protection from suits.

its the difference between elitetrader and the New York Times.

Elitetrader is content neutral... so its protected.
New Times is not... so it is liable for content.

--

No one is forcing facebook to cover anybody..
its the editing for content which should take them out of the
category.. they are in.
More...


There is no such thing as an open forum... everything has user/ standards of conduct and moderators and people in charge of policing behaviors.

I think you guys live in la la land.

FB is a private company and is under no legal requirement to allow all content. This is the ignorance that pervades the U.S. with respect to social media...

There are no defamation suits just becase a site refuses to allow certain content.

We cannot just make up laws that do not exist.

Open Forum means it is open to all. Does not mean you get an absolute right to POST whatever you want in violation of terms of use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top