JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Florida Governor stops Silicon Valley Tech Giants biased silencing

Make this man President. Ron DeSantis has signed into law something that will allow Floridians to sue Big Tech if they have been banned by one sided “selectively enforced” rules. Finally, Big Tech, at least in Florida, will have to set some rules and apply them to both sides of any debate or the aggrieved party can sue Big Tech.

It’s aimed at Silicon Valley:

“I, along with the legislators and this great governor, do not think that a handful of kids behind some desks in Silicon Valley get to be the arbiter of what free speech is,” House bill sponsor Blaise Ingoglia, R-Spring Hill said.

The new law comes into effect on July 1. It applies to any company with a revenue over $100 million or who have 100 million monthly participants. This is about maintaining a free and open town square. If political candidates are deplatformed it will cost the Tech Giants a quarter of a million dollars a day. (Those fines might have to be raised).

Coming soon: Big Tech to create all kinds of rules that benefit people who like Oligarchs.

Presumably Big Tech have already convened a team to deal with this. Expect their new rules to allow expressions of anything in peer reviewed literature, or approved by the FDA, AMA, Fed Reserve, or New York Times. And after the Biden Government sets up a Ministry of BLM, and a Department of Gender-Rights, then, “that too”.

It’s only step one in an arms race, but it’s a step.

DeSantis Signs Bill to Stop Big Tech Censorship of Floridians

by Bowen Xiao, Epoch Times

Courts may award up to $100,000 in damages to an individual if a social media platform censors or shadowbans a user’s content, deplatforms a user, or if it hasn’t applied censorship or deplatforming standards in a consistent manner, according to the text of the bill.

“We will be the first state to hold Big Tech accountable,” DeSantis said at a press conference. “They are exerting a power that really has no precedent in American history.”

Big tech companies that violate the bill, SB 7072 Social Media Platforms, can be sued by Floridians for monetary damages. The state’s attorney general can bring action against companies that violate this law under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Big-Tech are protected by Section 230, which treats the publishers as if they were really neutral platforms. DeSantis can’t change that, but he can enforce it:

According to Florida state, the new law will likely be able to withstand legal challenges, as it contains language that explains how Big Tech companies are different from other corporations, and that Section 230 requires companies to act in good faith—something the governor accuses Big Tech of not always following.

Hannah Bleau, Breitbart

The bill allows the state attorney general to use Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.” That might hurt a lot more:

“If social media platforms are found to have violated antitrust law, they will be restricted from contracting with any public entity. That ‘antitrust violator’ blacklist imposes real consequences for Big Tech oligopolies’ bottom line,” his office said.

Amazon has nearly 500 federal subcontracts, how many state contracts does it have? If Florida leads the way in cutting off public contracts — other states will follow suit.

DeSantis has a great example of last years censored “conspiracy” which is this years topic du jour:

“Now we have information that this very well may have emanated from the Wuhan lab, that it was a leak from the lab. But you remember when people last year were raising that as something that needed to be investigated, they were deplatformed for talking about the lab leak,” DeSantis said.

“They were censored for having said that. And now, even Fauci admits that this may be something that very well is the case. Are they now going to censor Fauci and pull him down off social media?” he asked.

Because corporate media said it was a conspiracy theory

There is already opposition to it, and calls saying it is unconstitutional:

… the  Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

“The (bill) compels businesses to host speech that contradicts the terms and agreements to which users agree — which legal and First Amendment experts have claimed is unconstitutional,” Julio Fuentes, president of the Florida State Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, said in a prepared statement. “In the same way that a grocery store can turn customers away for not wearing shoes or shirts in their store, social media companies have the right to turn users away for violating their rules.”

The Hispanic Chamber doesn’t seem to know that Facebook et al have no rules apart from what they make up on the day. And for every rule they announce there are one hundred breaches they ignore by Ayatollah Khamenei.

Just holding them to one set of rules will sort them out.

9.5 out of 10 based on 83 ratings

116 comments to Florida Governor stops Silicon Valley Tech Giants biased silencing

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    This could almost be described as a strange and unexpected piece of news; but then, Donald Trump lives in that state.

    “It’s only step one in an arms race, but it’s a step.”

    Many years ago the concept of free speech was given legs in the park in Sydney, where everybody and anybody could talk their heads off on a Sunday. Was it the Domain.

    I long for the day when people out for a walk no longer have their eyes glued to their phones but have their heads up looking at the scenery and more importantly, their neighbours.

    Every swipe on the phone is a cent to big tech. Time we got people back to reality.

    Good on Florida for leading:

    Sheeple get ready, this freedom train’s a’comin.

    KK

    480

    • #
      RexAlan

      Yes it was the Domain. I used to go along and listen, it was great fun.

      170

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Soap box orators and if I remember correctly, a “speakers” corner.

        80

        • #
          Hasbeen

          Of course, those were the days, when soap boxes were made of real wood, & strong enough for someone to stand on.

          Greenies would be horrified to see it. Today they are made of wood that has been mulched, pulped, homogenised, & turned into cardboard, that no longer looks like wood, & is not strong enough for anyone to stand on.

          90

    • #
      Ian

      But surely censorship operates on this blog too, via the moderation process? It seemingly operates in much the same manner as is employed by “Big Tech”. Is that OK here but not in Florida?

      128

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        IF.

        If there was no extreme censorship at work in the modern world, there’s only one thing that would be at issue: the role of natural and human origin CO2 in the atmosphere.

        And for those who noticed, :-), I’m not advocating that humans are Not part of nature.

        This should be the core of debate.

        Kinky Keith
        January 12, 2019 at 1:15 pm

        PF re what proof.

        1. UV from the Sun hits ground/water and is immediately degraded.

        2. Some of this degraded energy is removed to space by conduction and convection of the atmosphere.

        3. The low grade energy remaining can be drawn from the ground as IR which can be absorbed by water and CO2. This energy cannot be “trapped” by water or CO2 because the now, over energized molecules, are surrounded by other atmospheric gases and the system must Immediately Equilibrate. This is a not negotiable point of physics and gas laws.

        In both cases, Conduction and IR absorption, the hotter expanded, less dense parcel of gas Must rise and take the energy closer to its final destination:
        that great heat sink in the sky.

        The action of water and CO2 as greenhouse absorbers has no discernible effect on the daily return of solar energy to space.

        If that process wasn’t there, it’s job is done just as well by conduction, convection and direct movement of IR upwards to space.

        Very basic physics.

        KK

        In setting that up I’ve been very gentle with the CAGW scheme in allowing that IR pick-up by CO2 near the ground “might” occur.

        In fact, it might be that almost all the ground origin energy is picked up by the great bulk of the atmosphere via “conduction” and essentially none by the so called IR absorbing gases.

        You might ask Big Silicon Valley Tech giants why debate on this very simple concept of atmospherics has been Cancelled.

        And that’s what this post is about, the crushing of debate online and just as importantly in our government organisations, education system and universities.

        What are they hiding?

        KK

        110

        • #
          sophocles

          KK says:

          the role of natural and human origin CO2 in the atmosphere.

          and all the discussions would still not reach any conclusions because its not CO2.

          Consider:
          – if it’s the role of water instead of CO2 (true), then how long would the UN have been able to hide it?
          – how much sooner would we have been able to give the [email protected]##$&s their marching orders?
          – how much money have they wasted on what has turned out to be a Green Rabbit Chase?

          https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf

          21

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Yes, it’s all so basic, and for the point of this post the question arises as to why this elementary physics has been cancelled, hidden and stomped upon so successfully by others.

            The concept of “back radiation” is thermodynamic fantasy but it has helped somebody divert a lot of our cash to their own purposes.

            30

      • #

        Says Ian, uncensored.

        After I get my first $100m, or 100m monthly visitors, I will be happy to employ moderators and we’ll have time to allow discussion of all kinds of topics as an open public square. For the moment, you can post any scientific evidence you like (though you still haven’t found any showing that CO2 causes catastrophic warming).

        Ian, Section 18C censors all of us. I assume you oppose it, and look forward to seeing copies of the letters you write to newspapers about repealing it.

        340

        • #
          Ian

          I cannot criticise this response or any of the others I’ve had from you over the years. All have been both meticulous and courteous in addressing the points I’ve made. As for 18C I haven’t studied it in detail but I think in many cases Section 18D provides a bulwark against 18C as it notes under which conduct that prima facie breaches 18C will not be unlawful if it is done “reasonably and in good faith” for artistic, academic, scientific or other public interest purposes (or in reporting on any such conduct)

          That’s really having a two way bet though, so on balance, even taking into account Andrew Bolt’s unfair treatment, I think 18C should stay as a block against cases in which racism produces a material disadvantage for someone. That might be, for example, denial of a promotion in the workplace context, or rejection as a potential tenant of a residential property.

          On the other hand of course, many academics and teachers have been vilified, mainly by the Right, for corrupting “our children” with subjects, for example, “nontraditional pronouns for transgender people”. Isn’t their opposition consistent with the retention of 18C?

          019

          • #
            Klem

            ” ..18C should stay as a block against cases in which racism produces a material disadvantage for someone.”

            Will it aslo block government run systemic racism, often referred to as affirmative action?

            91

          • #
            D. J. Hawkins

            “…On the other hand of course, many academics and teachers have been vilified exposed, mainly by the Right, for corrupting “our children…”

            There, fixed it for you.

            50

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Thanks, I wanted to fix that last paragraph but in the end I just effectively gave up and thought; why bother.
              If a person with a phd in Biology is so “unaware” of the reality of the transgender issue, what hope has the rest of the world got.

              In the meantime, those who carry the burden of being transgender are not helped by the falseness of the highly politicised Gay Liberation movement of a few years ago.

              And so society continues to plod on, going round and round in ever diminishing circles: and I suspect eventually we will disappear, as that old joke described.

              20

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        As if to contradict you, I have been placed in moderation.
        For the last 41 minutes.

        40

      • #
        Terry

        ‘It applies to any company with a revenue over $100 million or who have 100 million monthly participants.’

        I suspect Jo would love for that law to apply, even in Florida, but sadly I also suspect it will not.

        51

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        When were you deplatformed here, Ian?

        What persona did you use that was deplatformed?

        I notice you’re still here. Do you have backdoor access for your deplatformed persona?

        60

      • #
        Klem

        But moderating a huge platform like Twitter has never been all that complicated really, and their rules were always clearly stated:

        No porn, no terrorists and no US presidents named Trump.

        70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Good to see ( leftist loving ) big tech being hauled up short.

      Good.

      More please…

      120

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Big tech hides behind weasel words like the climate cult, community guidelines is a mainstay used to suppress free speech anywhere anytime for anyone for any reason.

    271

  • #
    Contemptible Blackguard

    Warlords not Oligarchs Jo – The west’s Taliban!

    180

  • #
    John Hultquist

    The “cancel culture” has many outposts. For example, Simon & Schuster employees want the publisher to stop doing business with Trump administration officials — starting with Vice President Mike Pence. 200 employees wrote asking S&S to cancel his forthcoming book. Such things, including boycotts, can produce the opposite of the intended. Search-up the left-wing organized boycott of Spanish-American owned Goya Foods.
    I didn’t know VP Mike was doing a book, then, the “Streisand effect” kicked in and now we know.

    290

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    [Off Topic]AD

    121

    • #
      Richard Owen No.3

      And unusually inane even by his standards

      80

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      No it wasn’t AD – The palestinian reporters are getting off social media for commenting on the the gaza situation, this is widely reported in media, but obviously not the media you peruse

      [See now it wasn’t that hard to make the comment relevant was it?]AD

      213

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    “If Florida leads the way in cutting off public contracts — other states will follow suit.”
    I Live in Florida, have for many years. If Florida leads the way, blue states and federal Democrats will undertake
    character assassination of the governor — Happened with Bush, happened with Scott, in spades with DeSantis. Fake whistle-blowers
    and 60 minute hit pieces are what the public sees….in-state we get hatemongering robo-calls. You would not believe the crap being spread after he re-upped a casino compact with the Seminole tribe (something every Democratic has supported as good for native Americans when they have charge of it). You may know that, statistically, elderly folks have a fair amount of wealth collectively compared to yung folks….goes with the territory, probably true in Oz. Here it means a vaccination program doing seniors first is a blatantly racist program to take care of rich retires white folks before urban black kids.

    Ya just can’t set a good example for folks who don’t want to do good in the first place.

    390

    • #
      ghl

      Richard
      “Here it means a vaccination program doing seniors first is a blatantly racist program to take care of rich retires white folks before urban black kids.”
      And if you do black seniors before white kids, that is racist too???

      40

      • #
        Richard Ilfeld

        He did that too, with an outreach program through the black churches and a variety of social organizations with broad reach, like the sports team charities; got the job done too. If you are to the right of center left and not pigmented, every breath you take is racist according to Critical Race Theory.

        You may have noticed that when you leave reality behind and are a member of the company of true believers, the only remaining way to advance is to be more extreme than the next member….reading the statements of the woke, or the climate cultists and its hard to conclude that we are not pretty far down the road.

        If the nation/world ever returns to sanity, a lot of echo chamber sheep are going to have a lot of things attached to their names that they fervently wish would disappear.

        Suppose, not entirely hypothetically, that in a couple of years, in a business, education, or political situation a person with modest power holds sway over someone who in the fever of these times called them a racist, criminal, etc. and tried actively to damage their standing in the community. Especially if we have a bout of economic hard times, but even in normal times, there is a lot of Schumpterian shuffling of positions and power. I will be interested to see the reaction if being a “victim” is not an imaginary state that generates political power, the current condition, but a real potential issue. The form will be “I’ve looked at your record and I can’t hire you because…..”or the like.

        20

  • #
    David Wojick

    Being able to sue is the best strategy. People are being harmed being censored. The Dems will not repeal 230 because they like censorship of the right. State workarounds just might be the answer.

    220

    • #
      Hanrahan

      If it works would an independent content creator such as Tony Heller need to physically move to Florida for protection or could a Floridian be able to sue on his behalf if unable to read his blog?

      Tony and his dogs seem to enjoy the high country too much to move.

      170

    • #
      David Maddison

      Section 230 doesn’t need to be repealed, it just needs to be applied with its correct original intent.

      If an Internet company is a common carrier like a telephone company then they can’t censor but they can’t be sued.

      If they are a publisher, they can censor but they are also liable to be sued for any harm they do.

      Socialist Media is claiming immunity from prosecution as though they are a common carrier but they are censoring like a publisher and still expect immunity from prosecution.

      They can’t have it both ways.

      190

      • #
        David Wojick

        Yes but the question is how to correct this situation? That is what we are struggling with.

        80

  • #
    David Maddison

    This is good news. President Trump tried to do something but his useless AG Bill Barr didn’t bother to act.

    All that was necessary was to properly enforce Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It would mean that the Social(ist) Media companies had to declare themselves either common carriers like a telephone service (and not be responsible for content) or publishers like a newspaper (and be responsible for content).

    As President Trump pointed out, they are receiving a huge government subsidy in the form of claiming to be a common carrier and immune from prosecution for content when they are obviously acting as publishers.

    Just as a telephone service couldn’t deny service to conservatives and those on the rational side of science, neither should these companies be able to while claiming to be a common carrier.

    290

    • #
      David Wojick

      There is no requirement for a declaration in 230.

      41

    • #
      David Wojick

      Their position is that they are neither a publisher nor a common carrier. Rather they are a private carrier. Moreover, 230 was specifically designed to facilitate censorship, especially pornography and crime. The obvious solution is to amend 230 but the Dems will not do that. All Justice can do is sue and the grounds are unclear, nor does Biden want that. That is why I think private suits for harm are the best present strategy, especially class action if we can get them.

      70

  • #
    PeterS

    That’s what needs to happen at our schools and Universities. After all that’s where the indoctrination begins.

    170

    • #
      NZer

      And our workplaces, where we can lose our livelihood just for having personal views or opinions, or even discussion points, that (later) turn out not to be the secretly sanctioned ones.

      160

      • #
        PeterS

        Agree but we ought to start with the young. If we allow the indoctrination to continue endlessly at the schools it will only get worse since future generations will forever be mind-controlled to believe the lies of emissions reduction dogma, and as such affect workplaces and governments.

        90

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          The younger generation need to hear an alternate voice.

          To do otherwise is dereliction of our Duty as Elders of this younger generation.

          70

          • #
            PeterS

            It has been a dereliction of duty for many years. We need strong leadership to change it. Not one in sight I’m afraid. Instead we have leaders who keep ignoring the issue, and on top of that we have PMs, past and present who keep funding the ABC, the master of such indoctrination.

            60

  • #
    WokeBuster

    Talking about Big Tech and law suits, Dr Shiva has an interesting suit going concerning Twitter and government colluding:

    https://u8z8g8c2.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/11889-Supplemental-Memorandum-Playbook-Filed.pdf

    50

  • #
    Custer Van Cleef

    Poland has similar legislation in the pipeline – a 7-figure fine for “censoring lawful free speech”.

    I’m guessing Zuckerberg, Dorsey, Google, the Dem Party, plus libertarians will weep into their vegan lattes over these new laws – well, TOUGH LUCK.

    It’s going to be harder for them to “shape the narrative” and “impose their agenda” on the rest of us – absolutely why it needs to happen.

    280

  • #
    Serge Wright

    This new era of political censorship by big tech is all about money and political influence, but on a scale never before seen and with a global focus. Big Tech are essentially towing a pro China propaganda line to secure business worth many $ billions and with China soon to become the biggest global economy this censorship is only going to get worse and threaten all democracies. Of course it also flows down into the local political scene where big Tech now decide who should govern and who they will cancel to aid that cause. Extreme left leaning western governments such as Biden’s, that seek to de-industrialise and destabilise, will always get China’s green light support and I’m sure this is a big reason why big Tech are doing the bidding of everything left.

    Down here in Qz, we all need to get behind Craig Kelly who is suing Facebook for being cancelled. If this man isn’t our bravest and greatest polly please tell me otherwise.

    370

  • #
    Rick

    The big question is why has it taken so long to get to this point and why hasn’t any other State done the same or similar?
    It’s worth noting that at least one East European country has adopted similar legislation. Australia should follow suit – NOW!

    150

    • #
      PeterS

      Conservatives here in Australia will never follow suit. They lack a spine. As for the ALP – forget it; obviously. Sadly that leaves us with possibly one or more of the minor parties, but that won’t help either since as we all know most voters are not prepared to alter their stubborn attraction to one of the two majors, both of which are on a unity ticket on reducing our emissions in spite of the facts that show it’s a total waste of time and it’s a self-destructive path. Stupid is as stupid does.

      110

      • #
        Richard Owen No.3

        Peter:
        Why I share your general view, I think you are too gloomy. The recent by-election in the Hunter saw a drop in the vote for BOTH major parties, continuing an established trend there. I notice that the level of Informal and Failure to vote are also increasing.
        The beneficiaries are the minor parties, with an assortment of policies, some good and some bad. Any shock to the general public is likely to see both majors scrambling to get a malority coalition (as in Italy etc.). The effect might be poorer for stability but will force either major to examine their policies rather more carefully.
        I would put a failure in the electricity grid high on the list, followed by a second CoVid wave despite the rush to vaccinate with untried (and possibly dodgy) vaccines.

        70

        • #
          PeterS

          I’m not gloomy; I’m a realist. Everyone will eventually recognise the truth even though most now choose to ignore it. That’s the point of the truth, mankind can’t ignore it forever.

          30

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            This legislation isa start to blunt Big Techs excessive power , especially over the future parents of the next generation.

            Need to arrest the rot.

            60

            • #
              PeterS

              The rot is everywhere and spreading so to arrest it would require a complete attitude change by all Western leaders at all levels. Sorry, it ain’t going to happen. Pure wishful thinking to think otherwise.

              20

        • #
          Just Thinkin'

          Richard the 3rd,

          The Liberals have moved so far left that
          the alp and greens have got nowhere to go.

          Which leaves things wide open for a small party
          to tap into the Australian psyche and steal the show.

          30

      • #
        Terry

        ‘Conservatives here in Australia…’

        Yeah, good one.

        Good luck finding one of those in any “mainstream” party.

        60

        • #
          PeterS

          We are talking about so called self-labelled conservatives, not the real ones, who are becoming rare and soon to be an extinct “species”. The neo-conservatives are a new bread that are like chameleons changing shades between left and centre-left to satisfy their sickness.

          40

      • #
        Grogery

        Well Hunter was won by the National Party.

        The LNP is heading to the left and supporting more and more “wokeness”. And I reckon it’s the Liberals of the LNP that are heading that way.

        The Nationals could leave the LNP and go it alone. Put Barnaby back in charge (if Matt Canavan doesn’t want to do it) and go with traditional conservative policies. The Nationals were strong and well known before they joined the Liberals, they already have a brand.

        While voting for minor parties sends messages to the two major parties, it rarely achieves results. If the Nationals won’t divorce the Liberals, I’d rather see people vote for a National rep than a minor party rep – in that scenario, we might have more Nationals in LNP seats than Liberals, which might make a positive difference.

        10

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          Except they don’t do “three cornered contests” currently.

          That’d have to change.

          10

  • #
    David Maddison

    On the subject of censorship of conservatives and those on the rational side of science, Tony Heller’s website is still down. I wonder if Tony’s website provider has censored him too or hackers are attacking the site?

    https://realclimatescience.com/

    120

    • #
      Michael Spencer

      Yes! I have my suspicions about that too! His website is suddenly quite inaccessible.

      Perhaps it’s because he keeps on providing lots of REAL facts backed up by embarrassing old records and publications that endorse the REAL science that Tony provides. (And we can’t have that, now can we? After all, if we’re trying to frighten the natives with bad news, why would we countenance the possibility of them seeing good news. They might get suspicious you know, and we can’t have that can we? Not when we’re trying to reform world politics based on out faithful adherence to the precepts of ‘Brave New World, ‘1984’, and ‘This Perfect Day’!)

      60

    • #
      Lance

      Tony’s newtube site works properly.

      https://newtube.app/TonyHeller

      20

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Left are terrified of alternate ideas and the truth, that’s why they are obsessed with performing censorship.

    Notice how Leftists are allowed to post here on this conservative and rational science oriented website but any of us would be rapidly banned on “their” sites, and likely have been.

    250

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes, the left are not interested in discussions; only censorship of anything and anyone who disagrees with them. Their ought to be a law against that type of censorship, just as their are laws against defamation and the like, especially given our laws are supposed to support freedom of speech as a fundamental common law right.

      110

  • #
    Simon B

    Smart move by de Santis, one of the few prepared to stand up to the woke revolution and it’s propaganda machine. Countries around the world need to back him up in words and deeds, to push back now.

    190

  • #
    David Maddison

    Ron DeSantis has been suggested as a possibility for US President. He is only 42 so plenty of time to run. He could run after President Trump finishes his 2025-2029 term.

    180

  • #
    PeterS

    Given we already have laws that support freedom of speech as a fundamental common law right, one has to wonder why aren’t there any severe penalties for breaches of such laws? Is it because our political masters reject our fundamental common law right of freedom of speech so as to maintain control over the population to suit their agenda, whatever that may be at the time?

    100

    • #

      The words on paper of the first amendment are only as strong as the spines of the Supreme Court.

      140

      • #
        PeterS

        True but I was referring to the Australian law. Same issue though.

        20

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Can we frame that one;

        “are only as strong as the spines of the Supreme Court”.

        Once upon a time, in a land far away, judges were independent of government.

        Of course that was never true, but it’s much “less true” now.

        The world has never been perfect, but it’s now a long way from where we need it.

        KK

        20

    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      PeterS,

      What “fundamental common law right of freedom of speech” would that be?

      Freedom of speech is not absolute in Australia; nor is it enshrined in the Australian Constitution.

      It is always subject to laws necessary to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security, and ‘public health or morals’.

      Which specific Australian laws do you assert limit free speech in an unjustified way?

      OK, 18c would be a starter. But after that?

      10

  • #
    Ruairi

    Young Jack was brave and defiant,
    On his own, he faced a great giant,
    And though Goliath stood tall,
    Big tech giants can fall,
    If like David we aren’t compliant.

    170

  • #
    David Maddison

    Apart from everything else, censorship also kills people.

    How many people died and continue to die unnecessarily because treatments for C-19 such as those proposed by Zev Zelenko and others were not allowed to be discussed and were even made a criminal offence in extreme Nanny States such as Australia? Science relies on open and frank discourse, not a single “official” answer as Leftists think.

    Those on the rational side of science are not allowed allow to express their criticism of claims of anthropogenic global warming and are dismissed as nutters etc. And they can lose their jobs… As a result, people are dying of energy poverty from cold in Europe or daily inhalation of smoke from wood fires in the Third World because the Left won’t allow cheap energy.

    Discussions of covid as a genetically modified organism were dismissed as conspiracy theories and the Left mocked President Trump when he suggested it over a year ago (as advised to him by his real scientists). Now even Fauci and some of the fact checkers of social(ist) media admit there is evidence of its modification. Had that information not been censored outcomes may have been different.

    150

    • #
      PeterS

      Yet another point made well. Big Tech ought to be charged with crimes against humanity. Hitler would love to have been here today sitting on a board of one of them giving them advice as to how to put the screws on people much harder and faster.

      91

  • #

    I’m betting that this bill will fail in the courts first time. The “tech giants” are protected under the first amendment to be able to freely publish. There is no provision in that amendment to claim that an entity has no right to not broadcast material it doesn’t want to.

    112

    • #
      PeterS

      They are free to publish but the issue here is they ought not to be free to censor just because others disagree with them.

      100

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      They keep telling us that they “aren’t publishers” which is why the 230 law applies to them.
      They are keeping their cake and eating it at both ends.

      130

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      I would disagree on two grounds;
      As it is specific to political speech it echos the First Amendment…
      Perhaps more telling, it also has standing under the Florida Constitution,
      thus could be upheld for that jurisdiction with no bearing on the other states.
      The prime nexus for Florida would be during a campaign season, when any speech by a candidate
      would be considered “political”.
      I believe this construction is designed to force the declaration that the ‘censorship’ is actually
      editorial judgement, permitted to a publisher, thus settling that question.

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    You are correct – if they are considered a publisher. See my other posts on this.

    But – they claim to be common carriers like a telephone service for the purpose of section 230 of the CDA which grants them immunity from prosecution but it also means they are not publishers. It is quite reasonable that a telephone service is not responsible for the content of phone calls.

    However, they clearly act as publishers in the way they censor conservatives and anyone on the rational side of science. If they are publishers then they ARE responsible for any harm they may do.

    They simultaneously claim immunity from prosecution as a common carrier but also act as a publisher. They can’t have it both ways.

    This Florida law would be unnecessary if 230 of the CDA was applied in the way it was originally intended.

    120

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    A little while back I was accused of not detailing my science qualifications.

    So in response to the questioner; https://joannenova.com.au/2021/05/florida-governor-stops-silicon-valley-tech-giants-biased-silencing/#comment-2429722

    I submit proof of having done it, he just forgot, or didn’t want to see it.

    https://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/another-expert-climate-professor-retires-and-becomes-outspoken-skeptic/#comment-2093525

    KK

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here is an article discussing socialist media as a common carrier and censorship.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-common-carrier-solution-to-social-media-censorship-11610732343

    The ‘Common Carrier’ Solution to Social-Media Censorship

    Railroads can’t refuse to carry passengers for their political views. The same rule should apply to online monopolies, legal scholar Richard Epstein argues.

    By Tunku Varadarajan
    Jan. 15, 2021 12:39 pm ET
    ILLUSTRATION: BARBARA KELLEY

    The punitive banishment of Donald Trump from Facebook and Twitter has met with almost uniform approval from the president’s critics. So has the decision by Apple and Google to remove Parler, a Twitter alternative favored by Mr. Trump’s supporters, from their app stores. Many Democrats see these actions as a righteous and justified silencing, especially in light of Mr. Trump’s encouraging words for the mob that violently invaded the Capitol on Jan. 6. Even many of Mr. Trump’s supporters concede that Twitter and Facebook owe him no platform—that only the government has a legal obligation to respect the First Amendment.

    Richard Epstein takes a different view. The gagging of the president by America’s digital behemoths provokes in him a mix of indignation and distress. A professor at the New York University Law School, he is the foremost libertarian legal scholar in the common-law world. (Mr. Epstein, 77, directs NYU’s Classical Liberal Institute, where I am a fellow.) We converse by Zoom, and he says that he’d tell Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg of Twitter and Facebook, respectively, to “give Trump his account back.”

    Mr. Epstein envisions the two CEOs as a captive audience: “I’d say to them, ‘Boys, you’ve got to lighten up. You have to be less confident that you know the truth about everything. You know you’re doing your job when you publish stuff on your site that you strongly disagree with, and not in winning the short-term battle of keeping this, that, or the other guy out.”

    Mr. Epstein describes Mr. Dorsey’s Jan. 13 Twitter thread, in which the CEO purports to explain the ban on Mr. Trump, as displaying “a rare combination of hubris and ignorance, proof of how dangerous it is to have a committed partisan as an ostensible umpire.” Among many assertions that Mr. Epstein finds “questionable” in the thread is Mr. Dorsey’s argument that “if folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another Internet service.”

    Go to link for rest.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Dr Steve Turley discusses the Florida law.

    https://youtu.be/jOtdiPB_D7s

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    The overall phenomenon we are talking about is called techlash.

    The Oxford English Dictionary describes techlash as:

    “A strong and widespread negative reaction to the growing power and influence of large technology companies, particularly those based in Silicon Valley.”

    60

  • #
    David Maddison

    I’ve often wondered what it feels like to be a Leftist and have this obsessive need to censor and control everything.

    80

  • #
    Bruce

    The fine isn’t big enough to be a deterrent in an election campaign, merely a cost of doing “business”.. E.g: If Mr Trump runs for President again, does anyone think that there aren’t groups for whom a $250k per day for the last 100 days before the election would be worthwhile?

    Cheers
    Bruce

    60

  • #
    Analitik

    So if Trump sues retrospectively under this law, imagine the millions that Twitter, Facebook and Alphabet (Google/YouTube) would owe him…

    30

    • #
      Analitik

      Oh, it’s capped at $100k. Still, it would be worth asking the courts for additional damages due to the length of the bans.

      40

  • #
    Flok

    Great news !! That is what this world needs. Movers and the shakers and not the mufflers and sifters.

    20

  • #
    Don Vickers

    tony hella ( heller?) site is still blocked

    30

  • #
    Don Vickers

    Tony heller ‘s site still blocked

    30

  • #
    Cheshire Red

    Speaking of censorship, it appears Tony Heller’s site http://www.realclimatescience.com is down.

    Error 522.

    It’s probably just a coincidence this happens a few days after Heller destroyed ex-VP Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth comedy, which fully 15 years after release hasn’t made a single worthwhile correct prediction.

    60

  • #
    Tim C

    DeSantis is grand standing, this law hasn’t got a hope in hell of standing up in court. Nobody has a right to an account on farcebook or twatter, and they can legally ban whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Don’t like it? start your own platform.

    06

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      You might do well to study the history of radio broadcasting. In the early days there was a broad spectrum, and room for thousands of stations. Concentration was the norm, however, along with predatory practice, and instead of “start your own station” we got heavy regulation. To run a railroad, all you had to do was buy the land, start up and find customers, but concentration was the norm, followed by heavy regulation. Anyone could drill for oil in the early days, but the market quickly concentrated, monopoly power ensued, followed by …. say, is there a pattern here?

      50

  • #
    Yonason

    “Make this man President”

    We still need another four years of Trump first, hopefully with DeSantis as VP. THEN 8 years of a DeSantis presidency. By then maybe we could get enough of our swamp drained that we could start actually start acting as a beacon of freedom and integrity in the world.

    30