6 ms·

The Florida Deplatforming Law Is Unconstitutional

21 points by glitcher 5y ago

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
A government mandate that private entities must amplify the agenda of the party in power is a tyranny that the 1A was crafted to prevent.
- bediger4000 5y ago
  I think you're misreading which party is supposed to be amplified.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    I don't feel any party should be amplified. However, I am curious why you might feel one should.
throwaway292893 5y ago
I guess we will see, but I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in. I'd like to see transparent moderation logs first and foremost. These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. It's funny when you hear the "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" then the same crowd comes by and says, "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" When did we start caring about corporation rights more than people's rights?
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? > These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? > "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. > "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. A Gov forcing someone to amplify the opinions of people in power is an ethical abomination that the 1A protects all of us from.
  - throwaway292893 5y ago
    > How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. > They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem. What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency. > You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government. > That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. Unless you're a baker. Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it. Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      > I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. > How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed period, that's the problem. That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. However, you see other media outlets that aren't amplifying opinions you like. You advocate this FL law that aims to force them to. This a tyrannical effort.
      - throwaway292893 5y ago
        > A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not. > That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. Google deplatformed The Federalist, Press California, and Parler just recently, not a great example to use.
genericuser314 5y ago
> 470 The term does not include any information service, system, > 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by > 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment > 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013. The bill includes an exception for companies that own theme parks, which I for one am entirely in favor of. Move Fast And Break Things - The Rollercoaster https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/...
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > The bill includes an exception for companies that own theme parks, which I for one am entirely in favor of. By companies that own theme parks you mean major donors to FL state republicans. ref: https://www.citizen.org/article/song-of-suppression-disney-florida-vote-suppression-campaign-contributions/ https://www.citizen.org/article/song-of-suppression-disney-f...
coward76 5y ago
States are free to enact laws and companies are free not to do business in those states. States might prevent realtors from discrimination when showing homes, it is within their role as government. Big tech could exclude Florida if they choose.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  It is unclear what your point has to do with this FL Gov law that compels speech.
5560675260 5y ago
I appreciate that EFF is concerned about corporate speech control, but this is completely inadequate: > if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from social media during an election, the public needs to know why, and and the candidate needs a process to appeal the decision In a case like this company should be investigated (same way as a foreign agent meddling in elections), potentially fined and denied a licence to operate as a social media.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > In a case like this company should be ... denied a licence to operate as a social media. Gov-issued Social media licenses aren't a thing - excepting dictatorial-leaning countries like the UAE. Introducing them would be a very Big Gov thing to do.
  - 5560675260 5y ago
    IMO introducing social media licences would be a net positive. Our laws and societies in general are not ready for entities like Facebook. At the moment we are ceding incredible amount of power to private company, unaccountable to general public.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      You are hinting at issues that apply to mega corporations in general. Your complaint seems to be that we aren't as used to harm done by mega-platforms - as we are to harm done by other mega corporations. Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech seems like a poor solution to the problem of corporations that wield too much power over us.
      - 5560675260 5y ago
        I believe that we are loosing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general. Allowing few mega-platforms to have control over most of the political discussions erodes this ability even further. > Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? Looking at standards set by gun regulations, I can't agree about unconstitutionality either.
mech422 5y ago
I'm actually curious what makes anyone think Florida has any jurisdiction? Are any social media companies based in florida, have offices in Florida or 'do business' in Florida? I thought at least one of those had to be true to be bound by the laws of state? Can Florida create laws that are enforcable over entities with no ties to Florida ? Also, I like the 'move fast and break things' roller coaster idea!
- caeril 5y ago
  IANAL, but I do recall that when GDPR passed, The HN Zeitgeist was to tell everyone asking the same question with regard to enforcement on US entities by the EU, that you have to comply, end of story, stop asking questions.
  - mech422 5y ago
    I thought the idea there was a lot of the big tech companies had offices in Ireland for tax bennies... and that was part of the EU ? Anyway, be interesting to see how it all plays out...
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > I'm actually curious what makes anyone think Florida has any jurisdiction? Past state AG efforts against national corporations indicates (to me) that actually being HQ'd in that state isn't necessary. of note: Twitter has an office in Miami. However: Regardless of how the state expected to enforce this, the 1A issue makes all of it a moot discussion.
  - mech422 5y ago
    oh - didn't know that... I suppose they'd have to stop taking advertising from Florida based entities as well, to be truly 'not doing business' in Florida.

21 points by glitcher 5y ago

A government mandate that private entities must amplify the agenda of the party in power is a tyranny that the 1A was crafted to prevent.

bediger4000 5y ago
I think you're misreading which party is supposed to be amplified.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  I don't feel any party should be amplified. However, I am curious why you might feel one should.

throwaway292893 5y ago

I guess we will see, but I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in. I'd like to see transparent moderation logs first and foremost. These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. It's funny when you hear the "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" then the same crowd comes by and says, "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" When did we start caring about corporation rights more than people's rights?

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I welcome the change. I'm glad someone is doing something to reel these social media giants in How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? > These billion dollar companies are not immune to regulation just because they exist on the internet. They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? > "it's a private company they don't have to respect your 1A" You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. > "you can't force them to respect people's 1A, that violates the companies 1A!" That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. A Gov forcing someone to amplify the opinions of people in power is an ethical abomination that the 1A protects all of us from.
- throwaway292893 5y ago
  > How is a state gov compelling speech by a private entity reeling anything in? That's the articles take, not mine. I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. > They have never been immune to regulation. Are you advocating for even more regs, so that speech you like will be even more amplified? If not, what specifically are you calling for? How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed at all if it threatens the narrative, that's the problem. What are you calling for? Do you like the status quo? I don't want them to be able to ban political dissenters or candidates simply because they disagree with them. I want transparency. > You misheard. Private entities aren't governments. It is bad Gov behavior that the 1A restrains. The idea of free speech is not limited to governments, the 1A is. I can want companies to abide by this value. When a social media giant is so large that governments use it as a communication platform, maybe it's a town square now? Maybe it's time we apply those same restrictions to it because it's nearly an extension of the government. > That is correct. The 1A protects private entities from Govs. Unless you're a baker. Noone can go after poor little small business private-entity Twitter who has done nothing wrong at all. Got it. Just because you agree with the censorship now, doesn't mean it won't turn on you later.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > I don't believe it's compelling speech by preventing candidates from being banished. A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. > How would more regulation amplify speech I like? Speech I like is not allowed period, that's the problem. That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. However, you see other media outlets that aren't amplifying opinions you like. You advocate this FL law that aims to force them to. This a tyrannical effort.
    - throwaway292893 5y ago
      > A law that mandates that I or anyone must broadcast a politician's opinion - this is a textbook example of compelling speech. You are not Twitter or Facebook. Stop pretending these giant social behemoths are people, they are not. > That isn't at all true. Google any opinion you like and you will find many media outlets that are already amplifying it. Google deplatformed The Federalist, Press California, and Parler just recently, not a great example to use.

genericuser314 5y ago

> 470 The term does not include any information service, system, > 471 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by > 472 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment > 473 complex as defined in s. 509.013. The bill includes an exception for companies that own theme parks, which I for one am entirely in favor of. Move Fast And Break Things - The Rollercoaster https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/HTML https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/7072/BillText/er/...

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> The bill includes an exception for companies that own theme parks, which I for one am entirely in favor of. By companies that own theme parks you mean major donors to FL state republicans. ref: https://www.citizen.org/article/song-of-suppression-disney-florida-vote-suppression-campaign-contributions/ https://www.citizen.org/article/song-of-suppression-disney-f...

coward76 5y ago

States are free to enact laws and companies are free not to do business in those states. States might prevent realtors from discrimination when showing homes, it is within their role as government. Big tech could exclude Florida if they choose.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
It is unclear what your point has to do with this FL Gov law that compels speech.

5560675260 5y ago

I appreciate that EFF is concerned about corporate speech control, but this is completely inadequate: > if a candidate for office is suspended or banned from social media during an election, the public needs to know why, and and the candidate needs a process to appeal the decision In a case like this company should be investigated (same way as a foreign agent meddling in elections), potentially fined and denied a licence to operate as a social media.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> In a case like this company should be ... denied a licence to operate as a social media. Gov-issued Social media licenses aren't a thing - excepting dictatorial-leaning countries like the UAE. Introducing them would be a very Big Gov thing to do.
- 5560675260 5y ago
  IMO introducing social media licences would be a net positive. Our laws and societies in general are not ready for entities like Facebook. At the moment we are ceding incredible amount of power to private company, unaccountable to general public.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    You are hinting at issues that apply to mega corporations in general. Your complaint seems to be that we aren't as used to harm done by mega-platforms - as we are to harm done by other mega corporations. Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech seems like a poor solution to the problem of corporations that wield too much power over us.
    - 5560675260 5y ago
      I believe that we are loosing ability to combat harm done by mega-corporations in general. Allowing few mega-platforms to have control over most of the political discussions erodes this ability even further. > Giving Govs unconstitutional power over everyone's speech Could you elaborate on how would adding checks on social media platform operations would compromise everyone's speech? Looking at standards set by gun regulations, I can't agree about unconstitutionality either.

mech422 5y ago

I'm actually curious what makes anyone think Florida has any jurisdiction? Are any social media companies based in florida, have offices in Florida or 'do business' in Florida? I thought at least one of those had to be true to be bound by the laws of state? Can Florida create laws that are enforcable over entities with no ties to Florida ? Also, I like the 'move fast and break things' roller coaster idea!

caeril 5y ago
IANAL, but I do recall that when GDPR passed, The HN Zeitgeist was to tell everyone asking the same question with regard to enforcement on US entities by the EU, that you have to comply, end of story, stop asking questions.
- mech422 5y ago
  I thought the idea there was a lot of the big tech companies had offices in Ireland for tax bennies... and that was part of the EU ? Anyway, be interesting to see how it all plays out...
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> I'm actually curious what makes anyone think Florida has any jurisdiction? Past state AG efforts against national corporations indicates (to me) that actually being HQ'd in that state isn't necessary. of note: Twitter has an office in Miami. However: Regardless of how the state expected to enforce this, the 1A issue makes all of it a moot discussion.
- mech422 5y ago
  oh - didn't know that... I suppose they'd have to stop taking advertising from Florida based entities as well, to be truly 'not doing business' in Florida.