Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Mar 17, 2019.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    A senator in Florida is brewing potential legislation making censorship illegal on the biggest social media platforms: Senate Bill 1722, otherwise known as the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act,” would fine Facebook, Twitter, and other such services with a userbase of more than 75 million $75,000 for deleting content under the guise of hate speech or other “nebulous” reasons.

    “Citing this act as the “Stop Social Media Censorship Act”; providing that the owner or operator of a social media website is subject to a private right of action by a social media website user in this state under certain conditions; prohibiting a social media website from using hate speech as a defense; authorizing the Attorney General to bring an action on behalf of a social media website user, etc.”
     
    WBurchnall, eclypse, Dayaks and 7 others like this.
  2. Derangel

    Derangel [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    16,991
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Wouldn't a law like this be in violation of the rights of a private (read: non-government) entity to decide who they do and do not want to provide service to?
     
  3. Riouken

    Riouken Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    What we need is a change to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, that requires the businesses immunity to be contingent on non-censorship. They would only be able to remove content that is illegal.
     
    dugn, rgMekanic, mynamehere and 5 others like this.
  4. wootius

    wootius [H]Lite

    Messages:
    108
    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Given the size and ubiquity of its usage, I'd bet you could get public forum status for Facebook and Twitter.

    And it's fine to say "offensive" things in a public forum.
     
  5. MarkVI

    MarkVI Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    209
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Wow, this sounds like an awful idea. These are private companies and they are entitled to regulate speech as they see fit on their platforms. Perfect example: all of the big platforms booted Alex Jones for spreading lies and hate speech. Should they be forced to take him back? Speech like that does real harm, just look at those poor Sandy Hook parents and the harassment they suffer from the Infowars crowd. The pizzagate shooter is another great example.

    This would actually make executives like Zuckerberg less accountable. They could just say "Florida made me do it" every time there is a new controversy.

    Whoever wrote this bill seems to not understand that the first amendment doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want consequence free, it just means that the government can't fine or imprison you for it.
     
  6. clockdogg

    clockdogg Gawd

    Messages:
    834
    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Wake me when they introduce the: Stop Social Media Act
     
    Liver, Vader1975, maclem8223 and 44 others like this.
  7. Riptide_NVN

    Riptide_NVN [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,810
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    ^^ Seems like an idea worth exploring.

    I would think so, yes. The difficult position we're in now is that a few private companies are dominating such that it if they decide to pull (whatever) content then it ends up being extremely difficult to impossible for someone to locate and view it. While the government may not be forcing them to do this the end result is essentially the same.
     
    GoldenTiger, GhostCow and Skyblue like this.
  8. Riouken

    Riouken Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    MarkVI's post is doing real harm to me, just look at the poor readers of [H] and the harassment of your post. Should all the readers have to suffer from your speech? Time to ban MarkVI....../S


    This is the rabbit hole this goes down with your logic. If we keep going down this road we could soon be arresting and imprisoning dog owners and grandma's for jokes on facebook.
     
    Zuul, N4CR, alxlwson and 3 others like this.
  9. Patton187

    Patton187 Gawd

    Messages:
    679
    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    I'm with it.
     
    funkydmunky likes this.
  10. GoodBoy

    GoodBoy [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,225
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Can't say I agree with this in the slightest...

    Free speech doesn't mean ANY company has to give you a platform to say whateverthefuck you want.

    Can you cuss on television? No. In fact, you get big fines.

    Does my free speech rights mean I can say anything I want on TV? No.

    Does my free speech mean I can Lie? Yes.

    Does my free speech mean social media platforms have to let me lie on their platforms? No.

    In fact, a law like this would undermine the value of social media, turning it into even more of a cesspool than it is.

    Get a clue dumbass congressman... oh wait, this describes the majority of the cunts YOU all have elected.. yeah, the human race is fucked.
     
    TurboGLH, {NG}Fidel, scan13 and 12 others like this.
  11. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,547
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    The 1st Amendment rights, at the time they were enacted, applied only to the Federal government; free speech rights didn't even apply to the states until the 14th Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights to apply to the states as well. In addition, there's no constitutional protections within the confines of a private setting, which Facebook, Google and the rest apply as. While they have no justification to push for criminal prosecution for violating their private rules, they are well within their constitutional rights to ban you or your speech from their private setting.

    You can even make a constitutional argument for the opposite case; taking the "yelling FIRE in a theater" decision to it's logical conclusion, you can make a constitutional argument that speech that leads directly to harm is in fact not protected by the first amendment.
     
    Aix. and Darth Kyrie like this.
  12. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,547
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    "But bigger businesses are good for consumers!"

    If this is a problem, Congress is free to address anti-trust legislation whenever they want.
     
    defaultluser, Aix. and GhostCow like this.
  13. mullet

    mullet [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,640
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Hate Speech doesn't exist!

    This is what the snow flake cry babies use to try and control what people say.

    I was hoping this social media outrage/offended over everything was just a fad that would eventually blow over after a while but I guess not.

    I wish I could gather up all the millennials and drop them off in the WWII era and watch them cry themselves to sleep every night. Good grief.
     
    mynamehere, N4CR, equinox654 and 3 others like this.
  14. Flogger23m

    Flogger23m [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,590
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    This is a tricky question. These platforms have become so big and influential that their censorship is just as impactful as that of the government at this point. This is one of those times that the government may have to step in and protect the people from corporate interests.
     
  15. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    247
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    So any criticism of the nazis that could lead to a war against them, should be forbidden? Churchill would be rotating in his grave.
     
  16. Meeho

    Meeho [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,251
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    I have never seen a speech with such capabilities. Well, maybe with really loud speakers.
     
    N4CR, Master_shake_ and GhostCow like this.
  17. pendragon1

    pendragon1 [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,599
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    not when the head of the company publicly declares their platform as the new public square and is a human right to have access.
     
  18. ZodaEX

    ZodaEX 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,645
    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004

    If you get pleasure out of watching other people cry then you are a sociopath.
     
    Blown Cap likes this.
  19. dreadcthulhu

    dreadcthulhu [H]Lite

    Messages:
    117
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2017
    Actually, there has been a Supreme Court case that ruled the First Amendment applied to can be applied to private venues. In the case of Marsh vs Alabama(1946) a woman was distributing religious pamphlets in a company town, where the Gulf Shipbuilding owned everything, including the sidewalks. The company used trespassing laws to force her out of the town; she sued and eventually won -
    Considering how widely the Social Media companies have opened up their property to the public, one could easily make a case that the constitutional rights of those visiting those sites should be applied.
     
  20. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    247
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    In Denmark, almost all political debate, is through facebook and twitter. Facebook actively censors political views they don't like. Point in case, my friend got his post deleted because it said he thought that the islamic veil was the result of a tyrannical patriarchy. You may or may not agree with this, but should facebook disallow the discussion? It certainly isn't illegal to say. I understand that in Denmark they will introduce legislation to make it illegal for foreign powers to meddle in the danish political debate. When that happens, Facebook will be the first against the wall.

    On a larger note: Do we really want google to filter the search results according to their political views? Facebook to stymie all discussion that they dont approve? Twitter and so on? They make 1984 look like a paradise.

    I support this Florida initiative completely.
     
  21. Riouken

    Riouken Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    208
    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    I agree with most of what you said in this post.

    But were not talking about the government violating our 1st amendment rights. We are talking about censorship from private company's. Company's shouldn't be able to solicit your content(Make Money off it), then have immunity from it and then be able to censor it.
     
    mullet and Hakaba like this.
  22. fs123

    fs123 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    141
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    I suspect this new proposal is to allow the far right to spread the NZ massacre video and other such material. If that is the case then no one should have a problem when someone shares the numerous ISIS beheading videos too. I bet they will move straight to ban them though.
     
  23. Riptide_NVN

    Riptide_NVN [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,810
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    May happen some day. Not quite yet though.
    I agree that taking pleasure in the suffering of others is not nice. I agree with him, that hate crimes are a bogus notion.
     
    mullet likes this.
  24. Skyblue

    Skyblue Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    247
    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    So only leftleaning types should be allowed to share it?
     
    Meeho and testicle like this.
  25. Riptide_NVN

    Riptide_NVN [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,810
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    The Nick Berg beheading video was enough for me. No desire to see anything like it again.
     
    Ur_Mom likes this.
  26. maxius

    maxius 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,418
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2001

    /THREAD
     
  27. fs123

    fs123 Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    141
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2010
    Are you feeling ok? The current legislation allows for censorship/removal of such videos so why would the left or right be allowed? Some level of intelligence required to understand the simple concept I guess.
     
  28. mullet

    mullet [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,640
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004

    Ok be honest if you took a millennial bowling and he dropped a bowling ball on his foot and started to cry, you mean to tell me you wouldn't even smirk?
     
    Meeho likes this.
  29. Riptide_NVN

    Riptide_NVN [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,810
    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Of course! Liberals are right about everything all of the time. Everything from a conservative is wrong, 100% of the time. Therefore, the ones who are always right should naturally be the only ones heard since they are of course the source of truth.

    Haven't you been paying attention? I learned this on Facebook. :p
    Not really, but I wouldn't call you a psychopath if you did.
     
    GoldenTiger and mullet like this.
  30. Dekoth-E-

    Dekoth-E- [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,614
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    This is no longer a simple issue and is honestly massively complex now. You cannot simply take a stand of "free speech" or "Private businesses are allowed to run their platform as they deem fit". Back before social media run by private companies was the overwhelmingly dominate form of communication for the masses, it was a very simple issue of Free speech is something that only the government needs to be held too and private businesses should be allowed to moderate their platforms as they deem fit. I agreed with this fully, it was a clear cut issue. However we are now at a point where social media sites like Facebook, twitter, youtube and reddit are such a pervasive part of how everyone consumes content and how everyone formulates opinions, it is far more complicated. The big problem comes from the fact that all the major platforms right now have proven to be heavily left leaning and not just "A little" left, but extreme left. As such anything right wing is under heavy attack and heavy censorship or even non right wing but simply disagrees with the narrative. Now I say this as someone who considers them self fairly moderate with a definite tendency to lean left on many things. If you are going to allow the extreme of one side voice their opinions no matter how batshit crazy it is, then you MUST give the other side an equal chance. I am extremely disenchanted with how things currently are on these platforms as they are being extremely heavy handed on certain topics and at this point they are simply too large and too intertwined with how every single person gets their information to continue claiming they are immune to free speech.
     
  31. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,941
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    You are able to prosecute someone for intent to commit a crime, or aid and abet in a crime, and of course the speech they use can be used to prove intent. Allow them to make all that speech on the internet, it'll be much easier to prove intent because it's all recorded.
     
  32. Pieter3dnow

    Pieter3dnow [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,408
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    And you would have thought (not to long ago) that there were some other pressing matters in Florida that needed a bill.
    The idea that you can steer away from your responsibilities as a government to up hold some common decency and disguise your argument as censorship of any kind is the first red flag in the way you should see this bill.

    I think that the FCC had something with internet freedom that was not exactly covering the load .....

    Why is it that politicians have to deliberately have to fool people with a title that does not cover what is in it.
     
  33. TonyZ

    TonyZ Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    173
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    If something like this passes, no site just like this one can limit speech in any way, get ready...
     
    Darth Kyrie likes this.
  34. MarkVI

    MarkVI Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    209
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    I can't decide if your reply is a straw man or a non-sequitur. What about my statement was analogous to someone inciting harassment or violence through the spread of lies?

    Back on topic, if Kyle Bennett wants to ban me for any or no reason he can and there isn't anything I can do about it. I have no constitutionally protected right to use his platform. Alex Jones, likewise, has no constitutional right to use Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, or any other service. They can and did ban him for violating their terms of service. They can police their sites as they see fit.
     
    britjh22 and Darth Kyrie like this.
  35. GoldenTiger

    GoldenTiger [H]ard as it Gets

    Messages:
    18,295
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    HardOCP doesn't have 75 million+ users. Read before commenting.
     
    The Mad Atheist and Skyblue like this.
  36. Flogger23m

    Flogger23m [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,590
    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Agreed. At one point in time "google it" was a good way to find information. Now it is carefully curated as to what kind of information they'd like you to find.
     
  37. Tekara

    Tekara [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,007
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    I see no problem with mandating 1st amendment protection on public use social media.

    The original decision that supported protection of free speech on private property intended for public use was made with Marsh v. Alabama

    Over time, this ruling has been eroded away to the point that free speech is more of an idea than a right.

    A quote I like from the dissenting opinion of one such case against 1st amendment, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner:

     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2019
  38. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,547
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    But Constitutionally, that's exactly what they can do. Individual rights go out the window in a private environment.
     
    Darth Kyrie likes this.
  39. gamerk2

    gamerk2 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,547
    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Looking at the decision, the court basically said "yeah, even though company owns everything, it's still a public environment and thus Constitutional protections applied".

    Remember the Internet is nothing except a group of private networks that have collectively decided to allow open access between them. Each individual private network is free to manage it's membership as it sees fit.
     
    Darth Kyrie likes this.
  40. Tsumi

    Tsumi [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    12,941
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2010
    The problem is that Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have become so prevalent in how we obtain our information that they literally influence public opinion; they've essentially become national (and international) public forums controlled by private entities at this point. Nothing provided by public entities come close. Being able to control these forums literally give these companies massive influence on what the public thinks and believes.

    That's why laws exist and can change and evolve with time. At one point it was constitutionally acceptable to own slaves.