Federal Judge Puts Hold on Florida's Anti-Deplatforming Law
I called it.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday against a Florida law that would fine social media companies $250,000 a day for banning political candidates, saying that the law likely violates tech companies’ first amendment rights.
Passed by Florida’s Republican-led legislature earlier this year, the law was inspired by Twitter and other platforms deciding to permanently or temporarily ban Donald Trump from posting last winter after he accidentally-on-purpose incited a riot at the Capitol in January 2021. Although the law stipulates that social media companies may not “permanently delete or ban” a candidate for office, it would allow exceptions for suspensions of up to 14 days, and also grants platforms the right to evaluate and remove individual posts if they are found to be in violation of the terms of service.
In addition to the $250,000 a day fines social media companies would face under the law for banning statewide political candidates, they would also be subject to $25,000 a day fines from the state’s elections commission for banning other candidates, and could open themselves up to lawsuits brought by individual.
In blocking the law — which had been scheduled to go into effect on Thursday — U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle said that he took issue with the sweeping nature of the legislation: “Like prior First Amendment restrictions, this is an instance of burning the house to roast a pig,” he said.
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
The Trumpiblican Populist Party platform is authoritarian in conception. Every supporter of Trump, Desantis and those like them, that call themselves "patriots" need to have a cold hard look in the mirror. There is a reason these laws fail under judicial scrutiny and it's not some deep state plot against you. I'm not saying you need to go all touchy-feely liberal, I'm just saying you're ideals really aren't "traditional" American values if they constant conflict with the Bill of Rights.
I thought the trmp supporters loved capitalism?
Trump supporters only love drmpf, everything else is a false god unless he blesses it and even then it will only have temporary stature.
The hallmark of a free press is control of content.
You cannot force media to publish against its will.
Violating social media companies First Amendment rights by not allowing them to violate individual First Amendment rights by banning them from their platform. So much for corporations not being people; like the left always likes to tout.
The hypocrisy and utter stupidity of the judge is glaring; but what else can be expected from a Bill Clinton appointee?
You have a right to free speech. You do not have a right to a venue for that speech. Raise money and buy ads or just use a soapbox.
Let's use Trump here for an example: No one is taking Trump's 1st Amendment rights away. He has the right to say anything he wants. Any entity like Fox News or OANN can bring him on and also give him time to say anything he wants. What the government can't do is force CNN, Facebook or any other entity to give time/space to Trump. Facebook, Google and Twitter are private entities and cannot be compelled into indentured service under threat of law.
There is no hypocrisy or stupidity except in your comment. He applied the law, something that you should brush up on since you really don't have much of an idea of what you speak.
That’s impossible since they are not a government entity and are not bound by the constitution. They cannot violate a person’s first amendment rights anymore than I can.
Hey, conservatives had the boner for corporate personhood, don’t get mad at us because you reap what you sew. I always said corporate personhood was a bad idea.
And what is utterly stupid about the judges decision? What is hypocritical?
He doesn't like it.
This law comes just in time for the release of the new, long-awaited, Trumpbook.
One of just a couple of DeSantis ''laws'' that will be suspended.
A Trump mini me.
Can I force OAN or Newsmax to print my opinions?
Of course not. They are private media companies...
Vanity Fair does not have to publish everything that gets submitted any more than Facebook or Twitter.
Can I force myself on Hannity's lousy opinion show?
What this law is forcing is patently unconstitutional.
It blatantly violates their first amendment rights. The platform is their property and they have the right to police speech and behavior on their property. No different than a business being allowed to kick people out for being disruptive or for their attire. As long as they don’t run afoul of anti-discrimination laws they are fine.
I want my freedom of speech!
No more CoC!
If I want to say that @#$&% is a stupid ass, then I will say that @#$&% is a stupid ass.
Right, Perrie?
Question for those who think the social media companies are in the wrong.
Let's say Fred owns a social media site very similar to Face Book. Fred is a well known conservative, some may even call him alt-right. I, a high profile liberal politician, decide to run for POTUS. Fred doesn't like my views. Says they incite violence. Bans me from his platform.
Is Fred right? Or is he wrong? Explain your answer
Fred is wrong... but he is in his right.
He owns the site; he can do anything he wishes.
He could even create a censure system that takes account of vocabulary while ignoring meaning. That would be very foolish, but hey!
Is Fred correct?
I guess it depends on what you take from my words. trmp claims he never incited violence, didn't he?