4 ms·

Some context people will miss if they only read the headlines: - This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down[1][2]. Corporations have the right

by smt88 5y ago

Some context people will miss if they only read the headlines: - This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down[1][2]. Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech. This bill is cynical grandstanding. - The law tellingly does not apply to any entity that "owns theme parks"[3] (i.e. Disney, a major employer in Florida). That fact demonstrates how hollow this effort is. (Disney owns news services and the Disney+ streaming platform.) 1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/florida-deplatforming-law-unconstitutional-always-has-been https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/05/florida-deplatforming-... 2. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-laws-penalizing-social-media-companies-for-de-platforming-politicians-is-hilariously-unconstitutional/ https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/gov-desantiss-proposed-... 3. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-signs-big-tech-bill-20210524-dvycnrscjjbfnnh7vbs3wimv5q-story.html https://www.orlandosentinel.com/politics/os-ne-desantis-sign...

nolvorite 5y ago
I'm sure they were exempted for non-partisan reasons. Disney doesn't own any social media networks, or openly promote anything in the partisan space, which is what I think the law is going after.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  Isn’t Disney owned by ABC?
  - grzm 5y ago
    Other way 'round. > "The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American multinational commercial broadcast television network that is a flagship property of Walt Disney Television, a division of Disney General Entertainment Content of The Walt Disney Company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company
- mrandish 5y ago
  Universal Studios is owned by Comcast/NBC. Seems like it's trying to narrow in on the Facebook/Twitter style social media companies by excluding traditional media companies. It is a weird thing to specify and it also opens an obvious gap. Buying a small amusement park with a half-dozen carnival rides would be a negligible cost for a multi-billion dollar social media company. Possibly cheaper than paying for a detailed legal analysis even.
max-ibel 5y ago
I guess Google, Facebook & Co will buy up theme parks then?
- mywittyname 5y ago
  > Companies are excluded from the law if they operate "a theme park or entertainment complex," Or just buy a movie theater or a collection of weird selfy booths in malls. I would enjoy seeing what they came up with as the cheapest way to buy into this loophole. They'll own a Redbox outside of Dee Dee's Diner in Ocala Fl.
  - selimthegrim 5y ago
    New BoJack Horseman episode idea: Disney misspells trademarks in legal paperwork and is promptly sniped by FAANG
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
> "Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech." Can't they? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine One might quibble about whether social media is the same as a broadcaster but the parent's statement is certainly not true universally. (As an amusing aside, the latter link contains "In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement." Those who repeat the tired "corporations can't be compelled to host speech" slogan would've been speaking in support of WLBT's pro-racism right to not broadcast about the civil rights movement which shows you where their hearts really lie. These people may be on the left but they are not liberals.)
- smt88 5y ago
  Those laws apply to broadcasters because they use a finite public resource (broadcast spectrum). There is no finite public resource that Facebook has exclusive rights to use.
  - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
    Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopolies so that argument might not fly at trial; it would be interesting to test it out. If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily, then that line of argument might be more plausible. Either way, the point remains: it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to. And, in the WLBT case, it's even quite self evidently in the best interest of the public for that to be so, in spite of what progressives have been trying to tell us.
    - smt88 5y ago

by smt88 5y ago

nolvorite 5y ago

I'm sure they were exempted for non-partisan reasons. Disney doesn't own any social media networks, or openly promote anything in the partisan space, which is what I think the law is going after.

hindsightbias 5y ago
Isn’t Disney owned by ABC?
- grzm 5y ago
  Other way 'round. > "The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) is an American multinational commercial broadcast television network that is a flagship property of Walt Disney Television, a division of Disney General Entertainment Content of The Walt Disney Company." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Company
mrandish 5y ago
Universal Studios is owned by Comcast/NBC. Seems like it's trying to narrow in on the Facebook/Twitter style social media companies by excluding traditional media companies. It is a weird thing to specify and it also opens an obvious gap. Buying a small amusement park with a half-dozen carnival rides would be a negligible cost for a multi-billion dollar social media company. Possibly cheaper than paying for a detailed legal analysis even.

max-ibel 5y ago

I guess Google, Facebook & Co will buy up theme parks then?

mywittyname 5y ago
> Companies are excluded from the law if they operate "a theme park or entertainment complex," Or just buy a movie theater or a collection of weird selfy booths in malls. I would enjoy seeing what they came up with as the cheapest way to buy into this loophole. They'll own a Redbox outside of Dee Dee's Diner in Ocala Fl.
- selimthegrim 5y ago
  New BoJack Horseman episode idea: Disney misspells trademarks in legal paperwork and is promptly sniped by FAANG

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

> "Corporations have the right to free speech and cannot be compelled to broadcast anyone else's speech." Can't they? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine One might quibble about whether social media is the same as a broadcaster but the parent's statement is certainly not true universally. (As an amusing aside, the latter link contains "In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement." Those who repeat the tired "corporations can't be compelled to host speech" slogan would've been speaking in support of WLBT's pro-racism right to not broadcast about the civil rights movement which shows you where their hearts really lie. These people may be on the left but they are not liberals.)

smt88 5y ago
Those laws apply to broadcasters because they use a finite public resource (broadcast spectrum). There is no finite public resource that Facebook has exclusive rights to use.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  Facebook, Youtube, etc. have sufficient market share (globally even, not just in the US) as to be near monopolies so that argument might not fly at trial; it would be interesting to test it out. If the social and online media companies were broken into many small competing companies such that new ones could spring up easily, then that line of argument might be more plausible. Either way, the point remains: it's not "blatantly unconstitutional" and corporations can jolly well be compelled to broadcast speech they'd prefer not to. And, in the WLBT case, it's even quite self evidently in the best interest of the public for that to be so, in spite of what progressives have been trying to tell us.
  - smt88 5y ago