Florida Senate Advances Potential Law to “Crack Down” on Social Media Companies “Banning” or “Shadow Banning” Users Residing In State
To comply with FTC regulations, all links could lead to commissions paid to the publisher. Please see Advertising Disclosure in sidebar.
TALLAHASSEE, FL – The Florida Senate voted on Monday to approve a bill that would essentially allow the state government to crack down on social media companies that ban users from their services, a topic that Governor Ron DeSantis has referred to as one of his top legislative priorities. The bill passed along party lines in the Republican-controlled Senate 22-17, and will now head to the House.
DeSantis is said to have placed great emphasis on passing this piece of legislation against what he called the “oligarchs in Silicon Valley” following the recent bans of several prominent Republicans on social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter, including former President Donald Trump following the January 6 riots at the U.S. Capitol.
The bill, known as SB 7072, would prohibit social media platforms from banning political candidates; if social media companies are found to be in violation of any aspect of this law, they could face fines as much as $100,000 per day for statewide candidates and $10,000 per day for local candidates.
In addition, the law would require social media companies to establish and publish rules about their general banning guidelines, and compel them to enforce those rules consistently across the board in all circumstances.
FREE DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTION: GET ONLY 'FEATURED' STORIES BY EMAIL
Big Tech is using a content filtering system for online censorship. Watch our short video about NewsGuard to learn how they control the narrative for the Lamestream Media and help keep you in the dark. NewsGuard works with Big-Tech to make it harder for you to find certain content they feel is 'missing context' or stories their editors deem "not in your best interest" - regardless of whether they are true and/or factually accurate. They also work with payment processors and ad-networks to cut off revenue streams to publications they rate poorly by their same bias standards. This should be criminal in America. You can bypass this third-world nonsense by signing up for featured stories by email and get the good stuff delivered right to your inbox.
The sponsor of the bill, Ray Rodrigues, (R-Estero), claimed that “big tech” companies such as Facebook and Twitter are essentially monopolies, and as such they should be regulated by state.
“When the battle is between a monopoly on one side and hard-working Americans on the other, the right side of history has always been on the side of the people,” he said. “It has never been on the side of the monopolies, not in this country.”
Republican support for the bill in the Senate was not universal; Jeff Brandes, (R-St. Petersburg) declared the bill “unconstitutional” and against the base principles of the Republican Party.
“This Senate is currently filled with small government Republicans who do believe that government shouldn’t be in the lives of businesses,” Brandes said last week. “This is the exact opposite of the things that we stand for.”
Senate Democrats were against the bill as well, arguing that businesses are typically allowed to set their own guidelines for determining who they do and don’t serve.
In addition, many experts – including Brandon Rottinghaus, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston – have questioned the legality of laws of this type and expect them to be successfully challenged in court, since the First Amendment only prohibits government censorship; private companies are not beholden to the First Amendment and are free to establish their own protocols regarding speech.
“These companies don’t have the same standard that the government does, in terms of protecting the first amendment,” Rottinghaus said regarding a similar bill passed in Texas earlier in April. “So it’s not clear that the courts would see this as something that would really stick to these companies, so it’s not clear whether it would pass, legal muster or not.”