Judge Orders a Stay of Florida's Social Media Law

Predictable.

Not really a Hawaiian judge. That's a blog in-joke, because it's always "Hawaiian Judges" from the ninth circuit ordering a stop to immigration laws.

A federal judge on Wednesday granted a preliminary injunction against Florida's new social media law, which conservatives had seized on as a way to combat perceived censorship by online platforms toward former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.

Set to go into effect Thursday, the law, FL SB 7072, was a top priority of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis and would make it easier for the state's election commission to fine social media companies that banned political candidates in the run-up to an election, with penalties ranging from $25,000 to $250,000 a day.

The ruling: District Court Judge Robert Hinkle said that it was likely the plaintiffs -- tech industry groups NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, which count major platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google among their members -- would prevail in their claim that the law was unconstitutional due to the First Amendment.

We'll see if that stands.

Meanwhile, FaceBook, which is totally not a state actor acting in league with the US government and therefore not bound by First Amendment protections against censorship, is asking users to snitch out possibly-disobedient conservatives, also known as Dangerous Violent Terrorists.

Gee I wonder if FaceBook will be making its Snitch Logs searchable by the FBI, DOJ, CIA and NSA!

That's a real headscratcher. I just have no idea at all if the in-bed-with-government tech monopolies will be acting as a government partner on this.

Do you guys know any EXTREMISTS?

As you probably know, private persons and organizations are not bound by the first amendment or most amendments limiting state exertion of power. But when a person or organization acts at the behest of the state, either through explicit or implicit request or suggestion, that person or organization does become bound by the guarantees of the Constitution.

The paradigmatic example of this is a cop who cannot search a student's locker without a warrant, but who asks the janitor to open the locker and search for a bag of coke.

Had the janitor done that of his own volition, the fourth amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure would not have applied, and the bag of coke he found could be used as evidence against the kid in court.

However, the moment the cop asked him to open the locker, or just sort of suggested it with a wink and a nod, that janitor became a deputized member of law enforcement for the purposes of the fourth amendment, and that became an illegal search, the fruits of which must be excluded as evidence.

Every time the government pressures, suggests, or hints that they want the Tech Monopolies to censor certain persons the state does not approve of, they make the Tech Monopolies their agents, and the first amendment does now restrict their ability to censor, just as if the government itself were doing it.

More proof that FaceBook, Google, Amazon, and Twitter are not state actors... despite, you know, being state actors.

Of course, you won't read about this in National Review or the various other Google- and FaceBook-funded outlets of Conservative, Inc.

You will also almost never read the word "monopoly." They just pretend the special restrictions which apply to monopolies away, because their corporate masters are actually very pro-monopoly.

posted by Ace at 02:16 PM

| Access Comments