Florida to Supreme Court: Let us regulate social networks as common carriers

Post by mr_toad » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 12:56 AM UTC

deathanatos wrote: post #176

anon291 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not true. You need a Facebook account to interact with a lot of businesses. Many businesses don't have normal websites for better or worse. Many government agencies announce things through Twitter and Facebook for better or worse (worse in my opinion).

I've been logged out of Facebook for like 10 years, and in that time, I've not once needed my FB account to interact with a business. > Many government agencies announce things through Twitter and Facebook for better or worse Twitter seems to be the more common of the two there. They should not do that.

Post by kyrra » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 12:57 AM UTC

andrew_ wrote: post #214

klyrs wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a "satire[1]" meme floating with some disinformation about book bans in Florida. However, the state is second, only behind Texas, in actual book bans[2]. Relatedly, the vague "don't say gay" law has a significant impact on LGBTQ teachers right to free expression -- straight teachers are totally free to talk about their spouses, for example, but gay teachers are not. Quite reminiscent of the "don't ask don't…

Does the bill in fact restrict anyone from saying the word "gay"? If not, continuing to use the misnomer is spreading misinformation.

Post by favorited » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 12:58 AM UTC

tomcam wrote: post #185

klyrs wrote: post #53

Meanwhile, Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. This is not about a principled approach to free speech. It's about protecting the right to enforce religious-inspired bigotry, tearing down the separation of church and state even as that bigotry becomes "unpopular."

> Florida is purging libraries of unpopular political opinions. For example?

Post by TeeMassive » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:04 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #113

When a state is against net neutrality, pro super PACs, pro hobby lobby/religious tests in employment, pro book banning in libraries, but wants to regulate social networks because "political freedom", their motivations are a bit suspect.

Post by rayiner » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 1:07 AM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #129

rayiner wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment case law recognizes that protection for political speech is the very core of the First Amendment. It’s the whole point. Indeed, prior to the mid-20th century, it was understood that other kinds of expressive speech (pornography, etc.) did not receive as much, if any, protection.

First Amendment case law involves the government. If the government of Florida wants a free for all social media platform, it can create one. If they don’t have the technical aptitude, I’ll gladly accept a multi million dollar contract to lead the creation of one. Leading the development of large scale infrastructure and back end development is kind of mg thing.