25 May 21
A really really bad piece of legislation in Florida:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435
Social media platforms will be prevented from banning politicians posting content (so-called de-platforming). This is a completely wrong-headed interpretation of the right to freedom of speech. This law, if passed and allowed to stand, goes too far -- it essentially grants not just a right to freedom of speech, but an entitlement. Bad idea.
No print-newspaper or magazine can be compelled to print a letter to the editor; printing a letter to the editor is entirely discretionary. Same should apply to Internet forums and social media. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement.
My opinion.
Comment?
@moonbus saidNot sure how it works in practice, how would Florida get its hands on Facebook money, we can’t even get them to pay a decent amount in tax. Perhaps we should fine them instead.
A really really bad piece of legislation in Florida:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435
Social media platforms will be prevented from banning politicians posting content (so-called de-platforming). This is a completely wrong-headed interpretation of the right to freedom of speech. This law, if passed and allowed to stand, goes too far -- it essentially grants ...[text shortened]... ternet forums and social media. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement.
My opinion.
Comment?
Could Facebook cover itself by withdrawing its service from Florida?
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147484
@moonbus saidcan you explain the difference between a “right” and an “entitlement” in this situation?
A really really bad piece of legislation in Florida:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56952435
Social media platforms will be prevented from banning politicians posting content (so-called de-platforming). This is a completely wrong-headed interpretation of the right to freedom of speech. This law, if passed and allowed to stand, goes too far -- it essentially grants ...[text shortened]... ternet forums and social media. Freedom of speech is not an entitlement.
My opinion.
Comment?
FB wants to censor those that have different views. Each user has control over their own page...FB wants to usurp that right for themselves to promote FB views.
Why are liberals so intent on censorship? You like it now, but soon they come for you.
25 May 21
@mott-the-hoople saidThe standard work on rights and entitlement is "Taking Rights Seriously" by Ronald Dworkin (not to be confused with the evolution scientist and atheist, Dawkins).
can you explain the difference between a “right” and an “entitlement” in this situation?
FB wants to censor those that have different views. Each user has control over their own page...FB wants to usurp that right for themselves to promote FB views.
Why are liberals so intent on censorship? You like it now, but soon they come for you.
A right is a legal or constitutional brake on government power. A right to freedom of speech, for example, means that the govt may not restrict freedom of speech. That is, if the govt tries to restrict freedom of speech, the govt may be taken to court and sued to remove the restriction or show cause why the restriction is justified (e.g., shouting "fire" in a crowded theater to cause a panic when there is no fire).
An entitlement is a benefit the govt owes someone (e.g. a state pension, veteran's benefits, etc.). That is, if the govt refuses to pay out, the govt can be taken to court and forced to pay, or required show cause why the claimant is not qualified to receive the benefit.
Having an entitlement to freedom of speech would amount to legally compulsory means to force a newspaper or FB, for example, to print whatever anyone wants. This is substantially more than having a right to freedom of speech.
I contend that no newspaper or magazine would even have to contest this in court, if anyone brought suit against them for refusal to print a letter to the editor. No court would hear such a case, but the proposed FL law would amount to just this, turning a right into an entitlement.
I fully expect the ACLU, if no one else, to challenge this proposed law.
@kevcvs57 saidAs the article makes clear, FB could avoid a fine by opening a token 'amusement park' -- FaceBookLand -- think pinball arcade with Mark's face plastered on every blinking light and flipper! Such a silly loophole makes the law preposterous.
Not sure how it works in practice, how would Florida get its hands on Facebook money, we can’t even get them to pay a decent amount in tax. Perhaps we should fine them instead.
Could Facebook cover itself by withdrawing its service from Florida?
25 May 21
@moonbus saidThat just makes it surreal but the article doesn’t make clear how a state would enforce a fine on Facebook for banning a Floridian. Is Facebook a Florida registered company.
As the article makes clear, FB could avoid a fine by opening a token 'amusement park' -- FaceBookLand -- think pinball arcade with Mark's face plastered on every blinking light and flipper! Such a silly loophole makes the law preposterous.
Surely an individual is banned for posting content that contravenes Facebook rules just like a bar reserves the right to refuse admission.
Firstly, my guess is that since this is likely Republican legislation (Florida), that it is in response to the Right
being more often the victims of silencing by social media. Too bad. The Republicans' solution is to pass
the hat and create a Right oriented twitterland, where leftists are routinely thrown out.
I say this because we all know that we have the right to free speech yet we can not say everything
possible here at RHP, as an example. Government should never micromanage our communications platforms.
It is unconstitutional, IMO.
25 May 21
@kevcvs57 saidYes, I agree, there is an obvious enforcement issue. If FB were registered in FL, it would be simple enough for FB to move its offices to some other state, or even off-shore. It's a pretty stupid law, if you ask me.
That just makes it surreal but the article doesn’t make clear how a state would enforce a fine on Facebook for banning a Floridian. Is Facebook a Florida registered company.
Surely an individual is banned for posting content that contravenes Facebook rules just like a bar reserves the right to refuse admission.
Some disgruntled Republicans think they're being discriminated against because they can't get drunk and rowdy in Mark Zuckerberg's bar anymore, and that is why they are proposing this law.
@earl-of-trumps saidThe law is certainly going to be challenged on constitutional grounds, and probably struck down by a state court, then a federal court on appeal.
Firstly, my guess is that since this is likely Republican legislation (Florida), that it is in response to the Right
being more often the victims of silencing by social media. Too bad. The Republicans' solution is to pass
the hat and create a Right oriented twitterland, where leftists are routinely thrown out.
I say this because we all know that we have the righ ...[text shortened]... ple. Government should never micromanage our communications platforms.
It is unconstitutional, IMO.
25 May 21
@moonbus saidAnd as noted it will go down well with ‘Dear Leader’. Seems like a trivialisation of a state legislature, but hey it’s a state that elected trump twice so....
Yes, I agree, there is an obvious enforcement issue. If FB were registered in FL, it would be simple enough for FB to move its offices to some other state, or even off-shore. It's a pretty stupid law, if you ask me.
Some disgruntled Republicans think they're being discriminated against because they can't get drunk and rowdy in Mark Zuckerberg's bar anymore, and that is why they are proposing this law.
26 May 21
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidCensorship by a government entity would be a big problem. But the first amendment does not permit the government to compel speech.
can you explain the difference between a “right” and an “entitlement” in this situation?
FB wants to censor those that have different views. Each user has control over their own page...FB wants to usurp that right for themselves to promote FB views.
Why are liberals so intent on censorship? You like it now, but soon they come for you.
26 May 21
@mott-the-hoople saidMaybe we should start requiring radio talk shows to advertise to Democrats.
can you explain the difference between a “right” and an “entitlement” in this situation?
FB wants to censor those that have different views. Each user has control over their own page...FB wants to usurp that right for themselves to promote FB views.
Why are liberals so intent on censorship? You like it now, but soon they come for you.
26 May 21
@moonbus saidMore likely not, as he's now moving to another Trump golf resort in New Jersey, presumably to be closer to New York City and his power base (such as it is) donations.
@kevcvs57
. . . and his adopted home state now, so he'll be paying local taxes there (or not, as the case may be).
26 May 21
@wildgrass saidMoreover, compelling a news outlet or platform to publish an editorial or reader’s opinion would be a clear breach of freedom of the press. The proposed FL law amounts to govt interference in the press.
Censorship by a government entity would be a big problem. But the first amendment does not permit the government to compel speech.