Federal judge BLOCKS Florida’s anti-censorship law, says it violates Big Tech free speech rights

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Latest Breaking News | Federal judge BLOCKS Florida’s anti-censorship law, says it violates Big Tech free speech rights

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #432874
      jbnw
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,338

      From https://on.rt.com/bbj0 :

      A Florida anti-censorship law threatening to fine social media platforms if they censor political candidates or discriminate on viewpoint basis was blocked by a federal judge, who said this would threaten their editorial judgment.

      Florida SB 7072, signed into law by Republican Governor RonDeSantis in May, was scheduled to go into effect on July 1. On Wednesday evening, however, US District Court Judge Robert Hinkle issued an injunction blocking it.

      “Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest,” Hinkle argued in the 31-page ruling, nor is “leveling the playing field” by promoting speech on one side of the issue or another.

      Platforms sometimes block users for “engaging in fraud, spreading a foreign government’s disinformation, inciting a riot or insurrection, providing false medical or public-health information, or attempting to entice minors for sexual encounters,” Hinkle wrote, listing the grounds Silicon Valley has invoked to ban thousands of people over the past several years – including the sitting US President Donald Trump back in January.

      So free speech means they’re free to block the speech of those they disagree with.

    • #432887
      mrdmk
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,586

      The judge is correct, and some people do not want to hear it.

      As far as DeSantis and the Florida State Government goes, they are showing their stupid authoritarian asses in full view.

      Back in 1997 the Federal Government decided to give the Internet to Corporations because they can run it like a business and be more efficient. Many people said no, it needs to be a public utility for information. But the wah-whos in Congress made laws to the contrary in the name of money, corporations and Wall Street. So here it is. Just ask the biggest Republican of them all, Bill Clinton and his lovely husband with a bigger you know what.

      If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit WC Fields

      Warning DO NOT CLICK HERE!
      • #432971
        jbnw
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 5,338

        Social media companies have used Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to claim blanket immunity from content liability lawsuits, on grounds of being platforms and not publishers – a distinction Hinkle’s explanation seems to erase.

        So if they are curating content, are they now publishers?

    • #432924
      snot
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,280

      but most people either don’t care or don’t understand First Amendment issues well enough to work toward meaningful solutions.

      Destruction is easy; creation is hard, but more interesting.

    • #432942
      salemcourt
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,965

      can make the same argument and deny people a telephone connection since they are private?

    • #433152
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 3,230

      And growing, from what I have seen.  Given the common use of platforms like Facebook by the general public of so many Nations… It is a complex issue.  Still, I think a policy of anti censorship is better than the opposite.  Communication is key to many, many things.  As is the ability to share controversial opinions and debate.

      I would say that there should be a few limits – like not talking about hurting someone or blowing shit up.  Generally though, as long as the conversation is not along those lines…

      I believe in the first amendment – and while it may not apply to platforms such as facebook, i think perhaps it should – as it pertains to the U.S. and other Countries that promote – or claim to promote – freedom of speech.

      If such outlets as Facebook and YouTube and so on are only permitted to share official news and facts as they are determined… Then who determines fact and official news?

      I do not approve of government attempts to control social media – if it’s use is intended for the public, then the public should for the most part be able to communicate freely.

      I think we are headed in the opposite direction.  For many years” the U.S. has criticized other Nations for not endorsing free speech – and yet our own becomes less free with every passing year.

      I think we are moving in the wrong direction, whatever the legalities pertinent to this may be.

Viewing 4 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.