11 ms·
Florida bill to fine social media for banning politicians
- mapme 6y agoA 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.”
- ratsmack 6y agoWe wouldn't want to step on the toes of our tax base, now would we.
- lettergram 6y agoWhere is that? https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/942955/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/94...
- patrickyeon 6y agoAdded in the last amendment. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/811008/HTML 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/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/e1/...
- Barrin92 6y agoGuess Facebook is installing a roller coaster soon
- NalNezumi 6y agoThis bill would've sounded way more principled if it didn't have: >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.
- lettergram 6y agoWhere is that? https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/942955/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/94...
- ratsmack 6y agoIt's in the BBC article.
- patrickyeon 6y agoAdded in the last amendment. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/Amendment/811008/HTML 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/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/e1/...
- nerdbaggy 6y agoI wonder if Comcast would be exempt because they own majority of universal.
- duxup 6y agoNot 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.
- coward76 6y agoSocial media could just geofence Flordia, or abide by local laws.
- stickyricky 6y agoI would love if my state or country was just totally removed from social media. Bring back the 90's!
- nefitty 6y agoTo access the “open” internet, Floridians would have to resort to VPN’s, or proxies, as if they were in China or North Korea.
- seventytwo 6y agoIronically, this would be terrible for the GOP, who is assuredly pushing this.
- olliej 6y agoHow 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.
- barbacoa 6y agoSCOTUS 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 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1979/79-289
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ratsmack 6y agoSometimes laws like this are pushed in hopes of a lawsuit being filed and subsequently reviewed by the SCOTUS.
- ampdepolymerase 6y agoGood, the question of whether social media with large scale is considered a public square needs to be answered.
- cigaser 6y ago
- 1cvmask 6y agoWhat about social posts on Florida Man? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Man
- nichos 6y agoIn 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.
- lettergram 6y agoFor 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.
- LordOfWolves 6y agoI 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-tornillo https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...
- lettergram 6y ago> 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.
- etchalon 6y agoYou 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.
- pengaru 6y ago[florida]
- LordOfWolves 6y agoThis 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-tornillo https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...
- etchalon 6y ago"We demand freedom of speech, but only ours and not yours!" is a hell of a take.
- throwaway189262 6y agoThe 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.
- duxup 6y ago>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.
- throwaway189262 6y agoIt'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