Can you explain what damages occur? If a company doesn’t want to have someone on their platform and boots them, what ‘damages’ does that cause? If Kirk booted you off here (not that he would), how does that ‘damage’ you? I imagine you could point to the banning of politicians and say that hurts their chances to be elected, but that already exists. Private newspapers and magazines do not have to accept/allow ads, letters, classifieds, or postings from any individual, including political candidates and parties. This has already been upheld by the SCOTUS. Companies can choose what they allow and don’t allow on their platforms. They set the rules and you agree to them or you don’t. Don’t like it, go elsewhere. As a ‘libtard’ I was perfectly fine with the baker not making the gay wedding cake and I’m fine with companies determining who can use their services. Further, in the bill, they equate SM platforms to public utilities or common carriers. Well, common carriers (trains, airplanes, telephony companies, etc.) can also choose to deny service to people for not following their policies, so again…there is precedent.
From the bill:
“(6) Social media platforms hold a unique place in 74 preserving first amendment protections for all Floridians and 75 should be treated similarly to common carriers.”
Remind me where the 1st amendment applies to private citizens and/or companies? At no point has FB / twitter / insta / etc. ever prevented someone from going out their front door and screaming bizarre ramblings at neighbors walking by or calling their neighbors and telling them their anti-mask beliefs. People can say whatever they want, but FB doesn’t have to let them say it on their platform.
I understand they are different, but this is the same party (and specifically the Trumpian wing of GOP) as Devin Nunes that tried to stifle a twitter account because it parodies him and it hurt his fefes. Again, hypocrisy.
Last…I believe the bill is not serious and is virtue signalling (yes, the Right absolutely does it as well) and I support my belief by point out they added a provision which exempts companies that own theme parks; how much more on the nose can you be? So if TWTR wants to censor their platform ,they just need # Mountain and they’re good to go? That doesn’t feel like a serious stance in standing up for citizen’s speech with such a pro-tourism business ‘get out of jail free card.’
“The term does not include any information service, system, 470 Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by 471 a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment 472 complex as defined in s. 509.013.”