I know some Ohio lawmakers & have worked in their campaigns, I hope to get them to introduce a bill like this one, other states are looking into this too…
“One bill filed in the Senate would require social media companies to inform users why they were banned within 30 days. A bill in the House goes much further, allowing users to sue if they’re banned for political or religious speech for a minimum of $75,000 in damages.”
Florida Republicans take aim at social media censorship (news4jax.com)
30 days is far too long.
Would that law apply to this forum?
Look at the link
Define political speech…
Probably not, article says companies over a certain size. Would expect it to be over x number of people using the app or whatever.
Why does the size of the company matter? Speech is speech no matter the size
Not unusual for different regulations to apply based on company size. And I would imagine the reason would be so it doesn’t squash start ups or small companies with legal costs.
Raises compelling public interest.
Absolutely. Oh law. If I ban you, you’ll know in 30 seconds.
doesnt the company being sued have to reside in florida?
Zero chance that law would stand. Supreme Court ruled first amendment constraints don’t apply to private entities.
5-4 ruling. Kavanaugh wrote the decision.
This is a “show” bill. They pass it knowing it won’t stand. Then they can throw their arms in the air and claim they tried.
and does this cover being suspended?
what if they just suspended trump for 1000 years…
If this passes, for even a day, I will make enough money to retire.
wouldnt they just use a generic excuse for every ban?
Reason for ban: because we feel like it
how would that be illegal?
If they don’t call it “We’re Censoring Censorship” they’re off their game.
Balance of competing rights, does twitter right or need to censor outweigh an individuals right to speech. I would say no. By the way, there are several states with a more expansive right to speech language already. That doesn’t specify government action, like California who’s supreme court had this to say.
from https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2066&context=faculty_scholarship
the Court, in an opinion by Justice Mosk, expressed through dicta an expansive view of a-ticle I, section 2(a): “[A]rticle I’s right to freedom of speech, unlike the FirstAmendment’s, is unbounded in range. It runs against the world, includingprivate parties as well as governmental actors.”
Trump could drag them all into court there. New Yrk has similar language in their constitution.
You are forgetting state constitutions.
So the GOP is now for big government regulation? My how things have changed since I departed the GOP.
State constitutions can’t violate the US Constitution.
