Florida bill to fine social media for banning politicians(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Florida bill to fine social media for banning politicians
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56952435
54 comments
Added in the last amendment. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/81...
Also it's in the full text of the final bill, lines 470-473 right here https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/e1/...
Also it's in the full text of the final bill, lines 470-473 right here https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/e1/...
It's in the BBC article.
I wonder if Comcast would be exempt because they own majority of universal.
Not too surprising though. Most of the free speech related complaints from right wing groups in the US are entirely self centered, and their own free speech platforms, forums, and etc are heavily moderated to push only their own speech / talking points. Even to the point of moderating any hint of dissent among even like minded people on their own platforms ... they've no interest in the kind of free speech they advocate for when it is their own platform, or in this case someone they're financially concerned about.
It's not idealism about free speech, it plays out more like an ongoing narrative of political convenience with wonky bills / laws passed with little hope of surviving legal challenges.
It's not idealism about free speech, it plays out more like an ongoing narrative of political convenience with wonky bills / laws passed with little hope of surviving legal challenges.
A notable exemption:
“The bill includes a clause that exempts a company "that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex" - which allows Disney to be exempt from this bill. Florida is home to the Disney World theme park.”
“The bill includes a clause that exempts a company "that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex" - which allows Disney to be exempt from this bill. Florida is home to the Disney World theme park.”
We wouldn't want to step on the toes of our tax base, now would we.
Added in the last amendment. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/81...
Also it's in the full text of the final bill, lines 470-473 right here https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/e1/...
Also it's in the full text of the final bill, lines 470-473 right here https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/e1/...
Guess Facebook is installing a roller coaster soon
This will not play out well for FL in courts. Just because you can sue someone does not mean that you should. In this scenario, the state is risking taxpayer monies with every new suit.
A case out of Miami, FL that reached the U.S. Supreme Court is nearly directly applicable [1].
[1] https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...
A case out of Miami, FL that reached the U.S. Supreme Court is nearly directly applicable [1].
[1] https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...
"We demand freedom of speech, but only ours and not yours!" is a hell of a take.
The irony is that Republicans caused this. More specifically, the Senate leader Mitch McConnell.
He was instrumental in the Citizens United supreme court decision that gave free speech and unlimited campaign contributions to corporations as if they were people. Of course other Republicans hailed this decision at the time.
Well, now that corporations are saying and doing things they don't like I bet they're having second thoughts about their shameless loyalty to corporations over people.
Republicans of old would never fine corporations for enforcing their own community rules. But the Republican party of today is something else. Something darker, or much whiter, maybe both.
He was instrumental in the Citizens United supreme court decision that gave free speech and unlimited campaign contributions to corporations as if they were people. Of course other Republicans hailed this decision at the time.
Well, now that corporations are saying and doing things they don't like I bet they're having second thoughts about their shameless loyalty to corporations over people.
Republicans of old would never fine corporations for enforcing their own community rules. But the Republican party of today is something else. Something darker, or much whiter, maybe both.
>I bet they're having second thoughts about their shameless loyalty to corporations over people
The Disney amendment / exemption to that law seems to indicate otherwise.
The Disney amendment / exemption to that law seems to indicate otherwise.
It's similar to McConnells recent "My advice for corporations is stay out of politics. Not including contributions of course"
The hypocrisy level continually reaches new heights
The hypocrisy level continually reaches new heights
Social media could just geofence Flordia, or abide by local laws.
I would love if my state or country was just totally removed from social media. Bring back the 90's!
To access the “open” internet, Floridians would have to resort to VPN’s, or proxies, as if they were in China or North Korea.
Ironically, this would be terrible for the GOP, who is assuredly pushing this.
How could that conceivably pass constitutional law? The government mandating a private enterprise carry government propaganda seems to be the exact thing the 1st amendment is intended to prevent.
There are election laws that mandate equal access to ads for politicians, so a bill considering deplatforming as election interference would not be out of line with current laws.
An open question may be whether this proposal actually forces the platforms to allow all politicians to post, or if it actually just mandates equal access
It seems there should be some discretion to me, for example if a politician is posting content that otherwise violates the rules, is it ok to ban the politician for the content of the post?
For instance, with the equal access to ads for politicians, it seems like it ought to be the platforms right to ban grotesque images of aborted fetuses or gunshot victims (with or without connection to a political ad). If a politician repeatedly violates these rules, it seems like it should be ok to ban the politician on the basis of the content violating the rules
It seems there should be some discretion to me, for example if a politician is posting content that otherwise violates the rules, is it ok to ban the politician for the content of the post?
For instance, with the equal access to ads for politicians, it seems like it ought to be the platforms right to ban grotesque images of aborted fetuses or gunshot victims (with or without connection to a political ad). If a politician repeatedly violates these rules, it seems like it should be ok to ban the politician on the basis of the content violating the rules
Campaigns can still buy ads on the platforms.
Yeah, but when every post / tweet is an ad, I would imagine the new protection is required in their minds.
That is understood, the comment you replied to was just using it as an example of a law that regulates what a platform may do. If laws can be made to force them to run ads, it sets a precedent for similar laws that apply to content other than ads
SCOTUS has ruled on a case very close to this and it held up.
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289
[deleted]
Sometimes laws like this are pushed in hopes of a lawsuit being filed and subsequently reviewed by the SCOTUS.
Good, the question of whether social media with large scale is considered a public square needs to be answered.
Is it a platform anyone can use, or private publisher?
There is no legal basis for that distinction.
Is being a politician a protected class?
For ads, yes they are. https://www.fcc.gov/media/policy/statutes-and-rules-candidat...
Access fairness has absolutely nothing to do with protection, and even within those laws, and the FCC only governs purchased spectrum. It does not, for instance, cover cable operators and its ability to regulate the internet is severely limited.
Cable operators are governed by equal opportunity rules for political candidates. Politicians extending this to social media will probably be the next step.
I can find no law, or regulation, which specifies that cable operators are governed by those types of rules. Broadcast media (radio and television) are. As far as I know, Cable operators who run political ads do so because of the money they generate.
https://www.dwt.com/insights/2006/08/political-programming-o... is a summary from as early as 2006.
[deleted]
But the carrier can apply rules for the ads, and as long as they apply uniformly those rules are fine.
The problem is that “conservatives” have made their platform be one that denies basic human rights to protected classes and the platforms have banned such speech from both ends of the spectrum. If you want your speech or ads to violate the platform rules you are saying that not only does the government get to say “you must carry our message” but also it gets to dictate the rules of those messages
The problem is that “conservatives” have made their platform be one that denies basic human rights to protected classes and the platforms have banned such speech from both ends of the spectrum. If you want your speech or ads to violate the platform rules you are saying that not only does the government get to say “you must carry our message” but also it gets to dictate the rules of those messages
[florida]
What about social posts on Florida Man?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man
In case anyone wasn't aware, Florida man is popular because of the very liberal policy Florida has on public records (called the sunshine law).
Florida isn't really any more crazy than the next state.
Florida isn't really any more crazy than the next state.
For reference, Texas, North Dakota, and more are also passing laws. I suspect you'll see at least five to ten states passing similar legislation in the next 1-3 years.
It's a huge boon to Florida. Content producers concerned about being banned (or have been banned) are effectively risking their business for not being based out of Florida. If you run a business, you should not put your company at an unnecessary disadvantage with no recourse.
The end result of this is going to be thousands of political commentators, comedians, musicians, professors, artists, etc moving to Florida. Their families and people they support would also move, more immigration to Florida.
It's a huge boon to Florida. Content producers concerned about being banned (or have been banned) are effectively risking their business for not being based out of Florida. If you run a business, you should not put your company at an unnecessary disadvantage with no recourse.
The end result of this is going to be thousands of political commentators, comedians, musicians, professors, artists, etc moving to Florida. Their families and people they support would also move, more immigration to Florida.
Editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment as well. I don't see this law lasting very long.
I do not believe this to be the case.
This will not play out well for FL in courts. Just because you can sue someone does not mean that you should, as you can fail and waste taxpayer monies in this scenario. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case out of MIA that is almost directly applicable [1].
[1] https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...
This will not play out well for FL in courts. Just because you can sue someone does not mean that you should, as you can fail and waste taxpayer monies in this scenario. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case out of MIA that is almost directly applicable [1].
[1] https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...
> The first amendment makes it clear that the government cannot regulate what a business AKA free enterprise can or cannot say.
This is effectively saying you can't refuse service on social media platforms. It's similar to protections provided by the civil rights act.
I agree this will be litigated, but I think it'll be fine in the courts OR the civil rights act will be in jeopardy (and would go to the supreme court). I'm not 100% sure how the supreme court would rule on this either.
This is effectively saying you can't refuse service on social media platforms. It's similar to protections provided by the civil rights act.
I agree this will be litigated, but I think it'll be fine in the courts OR the civil rights act will be in jeopardy (and would go to the supreme court). I'm not 100% sure how the supreme court would rule on this either.
You can absolutely refuse service, and this law has no relation to the protections in the Civil Rights Act as it does concern a protected class, and in fact empowers a privileged class (the government) over private enterprise.
"Protected class" was a creation of the legislature. The principle of Civil Rights Act is that Congress has the power to designate a group of people that businesses are not allowed to refuse service to.
So if we take that the legislature has that ability, then this law should be ok. If the legislature does not have that ability, then the Civil Rights Act would be in danger.
So if we take that the legislature has that ability, then this law should be ok. If the legislature does not have that ability, then the Civil Rights Act would be in danger.
>designate a group of people that businesses are not allowed to refuse service to
I don't think the bill itself even claims it is doing that.
I don't think the bill itself even claims it is doing that.
[deleted]
I look forward to someone arguing in court that politicians represent a uniquely oppressed minority for whom the state has a vested interest in protecting such that personal property rights are no longer relevant.
>The bill includes a clause that exempts a company "that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex" - which allows Disney to be exempt from this bill
With this and:
>"If Facebook buys a theme park, does that prevent us from being able to regulate what happens on Facebook?" asked Andrew Learned a Democratic member of Florida's House of Representatives.
>"So, if they bought a theme park and named it Zuckerland and he met the definition of a theme park under Florida statute, then yes," said Republican Representative Blaise Ingoglia.
I just can't take it seriously. It just reeks "rule for thee, not for mee" and crony politician doing their own thing.
Edit: I would totally go to Zuckerland, though.