A new Florida character The law of the media is clear: It is the first law in the state to establish online statistics, and it will be the first law to be enacted in court.
On Monday, Governor Ron DeSantis signed the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, which severely restricts major media platforms in order to reduce or restrict user activity. The program of bilu and the legal distillation of Republican outrage over recent states against the careless, such as Twitter and Facebook closing the Donald Trump account and preventing the spread of popular New York Post Hunter Biden’s Story. Most importantly, it pays a hefty fine – up to $ 250,000 a day – for any platform that bans a political candidate’s account, and bans a platform for action against “media organizations.”
It’s very hard to imagine that this has been forced, however.
“This is clearly against the law, you can’t take a test,” said Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University of Miami. Properly supervised by the Supreme Court, the First Amendment prohibits private organizations from being compelled to publish or disseminate information on a third party. Prohibiting the “removal” of those who want to enter politics can be defined as an unconstitutional law. “The law looks like a political freebie,” Froomkin said. “You just drive, and nothing bad happens, because there’s no chance of him escaping from court.” (The ambassador’s office did not respond to a request for comment.)
The rules are not only difficult on these new rules. It also violates Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a state law that normally protects online platforms by dealing with crises in monitoring decisions. Section 230 remains an angry thing both sides of the political spectrum, but for different reasons. Officials tend to think that the law allows Internet platforms to escape and leave more destructive elements. Conservative critics, on the other hand, say it allows them to keep most of their belongings off the ground – and, worst of all, that it allows them to care for self-defense people on the grounds that they are gentle.
Notwithstanding the importance of criticizing this, the fact is that Section 230 is still in force, and, like most state laws, it opposes any government law that opposes it. This should try to enact the Stop Social Media Censorship Act to eliminate cost overruns. Suppose a person who wants to stay in an office in Florida repeatedly posts a violation of Facebook’s anti-fraud, or discrimination laws, and Facebook bans his account. (Like, say, Laura Loomer, a self-expression “Proud Islamophobe” himself ran for Congress Last year in Florida he was banned from Facebook and many other places.) If he filed under the law, he would want Facebook to be held accountable for deciding what to use. But Section 230 he says that platforms are free to “restrict access or access to resources” as long as they do so with good faith. (Facebook and Twitter have declined to comment on whether they want to comply with Florida law or face legal action. YouTube did not respond to a request for comment.)
Section 230 is required to restrict certain aspects of Florida law that are not politically inconsistent with restrictions on political subordination. For example, Florida law requires platforms to establish user rights, including informing them more about why a section has been deleted, and allowing users to write in detail regardless. All of these ideas are of interest to political reformers, and their forms are incorporated into state law. However, compulsory compliance with this law as part of a state law can be violated by Section 230, as it may contain a platform for the acceptance, or non-compliance, of consumer products. The Florida legislature has no power to change this.