Florida Introduces "Stop Social Media Censorship Act"

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
29,467
but when a company declares themselves "the new public square" and that "it's a human right to access it", they cannot censor people or kick people off because now they are breaking a human right and 1a.
 

pendragon1

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 7, 2000
Messages
29,467
I cant find fault in your logic but I cannot support the way you suggest we do it. what starts as censoring lies and misinformation will morph into censoring what those in charge deem unacceptable ..its just not a path Im willing to go down .
and thats already what they are already doin...
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,039
I'm torn on this.
How have social media platforms become a public forum? The case has been made that when used by gov't agencies and officials, those particular channels are indeed public forums and constitutional protections apply. That does not (AFAIK) carry over to anybody who can hammer their face into a keyboard.

I'm far less bothered about social media twits deleting things or blocking people than I am Google hiding things it decides it or its advertisers don't like and/or promoting their ideology or that of its advertisers.
Free speech applies to anyone who can hammer a keyboard.

Social media become public platforms when political activists started using them as platforms for their propaganda. If you allow one side of the debate then you must by definition allow others too. And most definitely you must allow the ideas posted there to be challenged.
This is what facebook / instagram and twitter doesn't allow.
They should either ban alll politics, or allow all politics.
Instead of permitting one side of the political spectrum to be represented there, while actively hunting and erasing the other.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
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.
So people are ok with giant corporations acting literally "like nazi's"? When you promote yourself as a public forum open to all, and than you promote a progressive agenda and censor anyone who disagrees with you, your actions make you a totalitarian enabler 100X's worse than Alex Jones...
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
So people are ok with giant corporations acting literally "like nazi's"? When you promote yourself as a public forum open to all, and than you promote a progressive agenda and censor anyone who disagrees with you, your actions make you a totalitarian enabler 100X's worse than Alex Jones...

Speech doesn't need to be free as long as it's the right speech.

Terrifying how far our world has come to 100% trusting giant corporate conglomerates to judge what is best for us.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Free speech applies to anyone who can hammer a keyboard.
Untrue.
Social media become public platforms when political activists started using them as platforms for their propaganda. If you allow one side of the debate then you must by definition allow others too. And most definitely you must allow the ideas posted there to be challenged.
Untrue.
 

tangoseal

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 18, 2010
Messages
9,296
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?

Not really. The social media companies have acquired almost limitless reach into the control of information flow. Essentially they have become what might be defined as ... you have an almost universal level of control and Influence on and into the speech of billions of people. When you get to this level you are no longer regarded as a simple private entity. You become in essence the actual definition of speech and its associated rights.

That is where the govt stands as well as millions of people like myself.
I do not look at social media giants like Facebook and Twitter as private anymore. You are literally denied rights to eat food, work, make a living, have speech, etc... if they decide to black list you or ban your account. That is too much fucking power. Govt needs to either shut them down or make them adhere to our rights and liberties instead of letting them usurp our rights. Essentially these corporations are much larger than government in thier influence to control and regulate who gets a voice.
 

Majinhoju

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,359
I don't think it's a matter of trust. They're a corporate entity and they decide what content fits their community standards. What they choose to allow or disallow affects their public image, and as a business they are allowed some control over that. If they feel that certain speech negatively impacts their business then they are free to remove it.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Not really. The social media companies have acquired almost limitless reach into the control of information flow. Essentially they have become what might be defined as ... you have an almost universal level of control and Influence on and into the speech of billions of people. When you get to this level you are no longer regarded as a simple private entity. You become in essence the actual definition of speech and its associated rights.

That is where the govt stands as well as millions of people like myself.
I do not look at social media giants like Facebook and Twitter as private anymore. You are literally denied rights to eat food, work, make a living, have speech, etc... if they decide to black list you or ban your account. That is too much fucking power. Govt needs to either shut them down or make them adhere to our rights and liberties instead of letting them usurp our rights. Essentially these corporations are much larger than government in thier influence to control and regulate who gets a voice.
Wut?
It's a fucking miracle! I eat, enjoy protected speech (not really, I live in China), have a job, make a living and I don't touch FB or Twitter.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
I don't think it's a matter of trust. They're a corporate entity and they decide what content fits their community standards. What they choose to allow or disallow affects their public image, and as a business they are allowed some control over that. If they feel that certain speech negatively impacts their business then they are free to remove it.

This is ideal, yes. But these media conglomerates are are so prevalent and extensive, they have usurped most other avenues of distribution of news and opinion.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
Wut?
It's a fucking miracle! I eat, enjoy protected speech (not really, I live in China), have a job, make a living and I don't touch FB or Twitter.

Say something inflammatory about Xi Jinping on WeChat off your VPN and see what happens. That's the direction we are going here, instead of direct government involvement you have indirect government involvement via mega corporations.
 

Wolf-R1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
2,005
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?

Isn't it already a rights problem when someone says "I don't agree with you and am broadly labeling your words as hate speech"?
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Say something inflammatory about Xi Jinping on WeChat off your VPN and see what happens. That's the direction we are going here, instead of direct government involvement you have indirect government involvement via mega corporations.
Exactly nothing happens. Nice try though.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667

Huh? News sites that the tech companies don't like have already been affected. Say something on your website that others might not like? Have fun being black listed on social media, taken off the search results for the media conglomerates. How about the universal payment arms of those companies denying transactions for your website? How about banks and credit card processing companies deciding that they are not going to deal with you anymore?

All of this is already happening.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
Exactly nothing happens. Nice try though.

Post this a few times and get back to me. Bragging about your freedom of expression in China. Get real.

skynews-xi-jinping-china-president_4242941.jpg
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,184
I understand what they're getting at but private companies should be able to police their own platforms.
If it comes on the ballot I'll vote against it. Florida is the nations leader in hate groups so I'm not surprised this bill was drafted.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
I understand what they're getting at but private companies should be able to police their own platforms.
If it comes on the ballot I'll vote against it. Florida is the nations leader in hate groups so I'm not surprised this bill was drafted.

I'm fine with hate speech being banned. I'm not fine with 'wrong speech' being banned under the guise of hate speech.
 

WorldExclusive

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 26, 2009
Messages
11,184
I'm fine with hate speech being banned. I'm not fine with 'wrong speech' being banned under the guise of hate speech.

Heated disagreements and being insensitive to SJW issues can be miscategorized as hate speech. It's not hate speech, but a spirited discussion, so I can see how social media platforms can misuse their ability to censor someone.
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Post this a few times and get back to me. Bragging about your freedom of expression in China. Get real.
You just moved the goalposts in order to try to be right...and you're still wrong. I'm a nobody. I don't have a social media presence in the States or China. I post pics of my daughters on Wechat once or twice a year. My friends include employees and family. China does not give a shit about what I say. Things may get censored if a post matches a keyword but I won't be taken away in a van during the middle of the night.

Also, you fail at reading. Seriously. Nobody bragged about freedom of expression in China.
Wut?
It's a fucking miracle! I eat, enjoy protected speech (not really, I live in China), have a job, make a living and I don't touch FB or Twitter.

EDIT: Furthermore, wherever I post it, it would be with a private(ish) company who can remove/deny content as it pleases.
 
Last edited:

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
I'm fine with hate speech being banned. I'm not fine with 'wrong speech' being banned under the guise of hate speech.
Anything labelled as hate speech is nothing more than 'wrong speech'. It should still be protected. Loathed, yes. But also protected.
A direct incitement to violence is the only form of speech that should not be protected.
 

Majinhoju

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
1,359
It's not that I don't think Facebook has ever censored the wrong content, I just don't feel that it's up to the government to tell them how they can police themselves. They're in charge of their own corporate image.
It's still not a free speech issue if Facebook removes your posts.
 

MarkVI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
215
So people are ok with giant corporations acting literally "like nazi's"? When you promote yourself as a public forum open to all, and than you promote a progressive agenda and censor anyone who disagrees with you, your actions make you a totalitarian enabler 100X's worse than Alex Jones...
You jumped the shark with the Nazi thing. You would have been better off comparing them to Stalin since he was left wing and Hitler was right wing. /s

Just because potentially dangerous speech (i.e. Alex Jones doxing a Sandy Hook parent) is censored doesn't make it a vast left wing conspiracy.

Again, whether you agree with it or not, our conservative leaning SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that corporations are people too. Hobby Lobby's owners were allowed to impose their religious views on their employees (birth control). Even if you believe that is what is happening elsewhere to conservatives how do you propose we unwind that?
 

Laowai

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
534
Huh? News sites that the tech companies don't like have already been affected. Say something on your website that others might not like? Have fun being black listed on social media, taken off the search results for the media conglomerates. How about the universal payment arms of those companies denying transactions for your website? How about banks and credit card processing companies deciding that they are not going to deal with you anymore?

All of this is already happening.
I'm unsure exactly which of my posts you're replying to here since I've called out a few things as being untrue and your post is so unrelated I'm just lost.
Either way, I think I'm done with you. You're not worth responding to.
Toodles.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
You jumped the shark with the Nazi thing. You would have been better off comparing them to Stalin since he was left wing and Hitler was right wing. /s

Just because potentially dangerous speech (i.e. Alex Jones doxing a Sandy Hook parent) is censored doesn't make it a vast left wing conspiracy.

Again, whether you agree with it or not, our conservative leaning SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that corporations are people too. Hobby Lobby's owners were allowed to impose their religious views on their employees (birth control). Even if you believe that is what is happening elsewhere to conservatives how do you propose we unwind that?

Hobby Lobby is not a powerful media conglomerate distributing speech. Removing someone else's speech because you don't like it is different than expressing your own thoughts. That's like walking into Hobby Lobby as a customer and not being allowed to leave until they Baptize you.
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
I'm unsure exactly which of my posts you're replying to here since I've called out a few things as being untrue and your post is so unrelated I'm just lost.
Either way, I think I'm done with you. You're not worth responding to.
Toodles.

No problem. I know it's like, three separate posts. That is tough to keep track of. Good luck.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
HardOCP doesn't have 75 million+ users. Read before commenting.

Wait up now, once it starts, where does it end?

I just wanted to throw that out there. If you let it fly unchallenged than you have said that it's fine in principle so.....
 

MarkVI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
215
Hobby Lobby is not a powerful media conglomerate distributing speech. Removing someone else's speech because you don't like it is different than expressing your own thoughts. That's like walking into Hobby Lobby as a customer and not being allowed to leave until they Baptize you.
Your analogy isn't even close. You don't have to use Facebook. I don't and I'm getting by just fine. Facebook isn't imposing it's speech on you. If you don't like it, don't use it. It isn't a government entity, therefore the first amendment doesn't apply.

Hobby Lobby is absolutely applicable. It established a first amendment right for corporations. Corporate speech is protected under the Roberts court, and you can't tell me that Kavanaugh or Gorsuch are going to undermine that. I'm not a big fan of this, but that's the way it is.

Again, if they're too powerful the only tool available is anti-trust action.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
These are now used for social engineering! Control the narrative is what they do.

They will continue till there stopped.

All media does the same as they see fit.

Prob is the masses have no idea and live in a bubble just like they want you to live. Brain washed and under there control!

You have to get your news from sources that are not under control and payed for!

Censoring the few that speak the truth to hide there bullshit.

Remember believe half of what you read and what you see.

Remember life before trump? Notice how everything has been like chaos since he became president? Remember that happening before? Nope! Get a clue and wake up!
 

SilverSliver

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
11,667
Your analogy isn't even close. You don't have to use Facebook. I don't and I'm getting by just fine. Facebook isn't imposing it's speech on you. If you don't like it, don't use it. It isn't a government entity, therefore the first amendment doesn't apply.

Hobby Lobby is absolutely applicable. It established a first amendment right for corporations. Corporate speech is protected under the Roberts court, and you can't tell me that Kavanaugh or Gorsuch are going to undermine that. I'm not a big fan of this, but that's the way it is.

Again, if they're too powerful the only tool available is anti-trust action.

I'm not saying you don't have to use Facebook, as an individual. The vast majority of people, however, use something like Facebook. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon - all controlled by a very small group of very powerful tech companies with very similar ideologies and with the same corporate advertiser backings. Some of these groups have even taken controlling stakes in actual media and news companies and get to choose what 'fact checks' are valid, and which ones are not. This isn't a 'hurr dur just don't use Facebook' - this goes way past that.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
12,039
Untrue.
Untrue.
LOL, very astute, and well reasoned. So I take it you think equal opportunity is not a good thing then?
Enjoy your animal farm, just don't complain when you happen to be on the wrong side of the pitchfork.
 

eclypse

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
3,267
I'm not saying you don't have to use Facebook, as an individual. The vast majority of people, however, use something like Facebook. Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Amazon - all controlled by a very small group of very powerful tech companies with very similar ideologies and with the same corporate advertiser backings. Some of these groups have even taken controlling stakes in actual media and news companies and get to choose what 'fact checks' are valid, and which ones are not. This isn't a 'hurr dur just don't use Facebook' - this goes way past that.

Yes and if you stop and think about it.. there all more powerful then the government!

Able to control the talking points! Erase history.. push race wars and even start wars.

Block and ban those on the other side "conservatives" and push there talking points and drive them home.

Influence elections even.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
These are now used for social engineering! Control the narrative is what they do.

They will continue till there stopped.

All media does the same as they see fit.

Prob is the masses have no idea and live in a bubble just like they want you to live. Brain washed and under there control!

You have to get your news from sources that are not under control and payed for!

Censoring the few that speak the truth to hide there bullshit.

Remember believe half of what you read and what you see.

Remember life before trump? Notice how everything has been like chaos since he became president? Remember that happening before? Nope! Get a clue and wake up!


So funny, I like how things have been since Trump was elected. The only people who are upset and acting crazy are the people pissed off that their social engineering train has left the tracks.

Of course I'm pretty sure that I am allowing you to pull me into getting slapped by an admin again.
 

Skyblue

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
278
Influence elections even.

Surely it was the russians. Not facebook itself. Facebook censures heavily here in Denmark. Very very leftleaning corporation. However, all the politicians are present there. So, where else can you go to discuss politics? It is by all definitions a public forum. As measured in penetration and by the influence of the participants.
 

thejokker

Gawd
Joined
Mar 16, 2005
Messages
831
You jumped the shark with the Nazi thing. You would have been better off comparing them to Stalin since he was left wing and Hitler was right wing. /s

Just because potentially dangerous speech (i.e. Alex Jones doxing a Sandy Hook parent) is censored doesn't make it a vast left wing conspiracy.

Again, whether you agree with it or not, our conservative leaning SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that corporations are people too. Hobby Lobby's owners were allowed to impose their religious views on their employees (birth control). Even if you believe that is what is happening elsewhere to conservatives how do you propose we unwind that?
Technically Hitler was left-wing. Hitler was a socialist who disagreed with Marx regarding who workers identified with. Marx believed workers identified with their class while Hitler believed workers identified with their countrymen hence "National Socialism". In "Das Kapital" Marx wrote of the progression a capitalist state undergoes in it's transformation to a communist state. The first step is socialism/fascism where that state retains capitalism but with a government that pursues a socialist agenda through heavy regulation of industry.

These social media companies have become "monopolies" and are using their power to harm consumers by censoring and suppressing those same consumers. Bust those Trusts...
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Heated disagreements and being insensitive to SJW issues can be miscategorized as hate speech. It's not hate speech, but a spirited discussion, so I can see how social media platforms can misuse their ability to censor someone.

OK, but let's be clear. I don't used Facebook, it's too easy to get fucked over on it. And we have already well established that this is not a 1st Amendment issue because it's not the government limiting speech. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Government of Florida State is actually risking a 1st Amendment issue getting involved where they shouldn't, in speech issues.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
When it comes to speech, it's mostly a hands off issue. When it comes to speech that incites violence, that's already covered. No need to build a better mouse trap here.

When it comes to this issue, on the one hand you have the government seeking to influence private business on a speech issue ...... that alone should be a problem.

On the other hand, we have people who see specific justifications that sound alright and forget that this is exactly the kind of thing that could lead to [H] not being able to monitor their own forums. Once you start down the path of the dark side .....

This is not the first time the Federal or a State government has considered doing something that initially sounds good, but had to back off because it was fundamentally wrong. It looked great on paper but .....

I don't like some of the things Facebook censures, and I don't have to.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
These social media companies have become "monopolies" and are using their power to harm consumers by censoring and suppressing those same consumers. Bust those Trusts...

They only have the power that we allow them. If their users fled the platform it would die.
 

MarkVI

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
215
Technically Hitler was left-wing. Hitler was a socialist who disagreed with Marx regarding who workers identified with. Marx believed workers identified with their class while Hitler believed workers identified with their countrymen hence "National Socialism". In "Das Kapital" Marx wrote of the progression a capitalist state undergoes in it's transformation to a communist state. The first step is socialism/fascism where that state retains capitalism but with a government that pursues a socialist agenda through heavy regulation of industry.

These social media companies have become "monopolies" and are using their power to harm consumers by censoring and suppressing those same consumers. Bust those Trusts...
Sorry if I come across as rude, but you're just incorrect. Fascism is extreme right wing nationalism. Ask any reputable historian. The inclusion of the word "socialist" in the Nazi name was a rhetorical gambit. Socialism and Fascism are literally polar opposites on the political spectrum.

We can certainly agree, however, that many of the big tech companies are too big and need to be broken up.
 
Top