Connect with us

Tech

Florida Bill Would Fine Twitter, Facebook For Censoring Conservatives

The potentially game changing Florida legislation could hit Big Tech in their pocketbooks.

Published

on

Florida Bill Stop Big Tech Censorship

This month a Florida lawmaker introduced the Stop Social Media Censorship Act, a bill designed to fine Big Tech companies for their mass censorship of conservatives and Christians.

Florida State Senator Joe Gruters introduced the bill last Friday in an attempt to stop the mass censorship of conservatives and Christians by hitting Big Tech giants in their pocketbook whenever censorship occurs.

According to the bill summary, it will prohibit “a social media company from using hate speech as a defense,” and authorize Florida’s “Attorney General to bring an action on behalf of a social media website user,” effectively ending Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube’s fallback censorship excuses of hate speech or violation of community standards.

Trending: Tennessee’s Marsha Blackburn Calls on Ilhan Omar to Resign After Minnesota Democrat Calls to “Dismantle” U.S. “System of Oppression”

The bill posits that social media companies have created a “digital public square,” and the state of Florida “has an interest in helping its citizens enjoy their free exercise of rights.”

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

If passed, any social media company with more than 75 million users will be fined a minimum of $75,000 for infringing on the freedom of speech of its users.

From the text of the bill:

58         (2)(a) The owner or operator of a social media website who
   59  contracts with a social media website user in this state is
   60  subject to a private right of action by such user if the social
   61  media website purposely:
   62         1. Deletes or censors the user’s religious speech or
   63  political speech; or
   64         2. Uses an algorithm to disfavor or censure the user’s
   65  religious speech or political speech.
   66         (b) A social media website user may be awarded all of the
   67  following damages under this section:
   68         1. A minimum of $75,000 in statutory damages per purposeful
   69  deletion or censoring of the social media website user’s speech.
   70         2. Actual damages.
   71         3. If aggravating factors are present, punitive damages.
   72         4. Other forms of equitable relief.
   73         (c) The prevailing party in a cause of action under this
   74  section may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.
   75         (d) A social media website that restores from deletion or
   76  removes the censoring of a social media website user’s speech in
   77  a reasonable amount of time may use that fact to mitigate any
   78  damages.


It would also prevent social media companies from using nebulous definitions of hate speech from skirting these fines in a court of law, effectively ending Big Tech giants’ mass censorship.

This comes as Twitter’s head censor has been exposed as a radical left wing ideologue, and as journalist Tim Pool roundly demolished all censorship excuses during an appearance on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast.

Tech

Facebook Runs Electoral Interference to Stop Surging Congressional Candidate Laura Loomer

Facebook’s discriminatory practices against Loomer may be illegal.

Published

on

Congressional candidate Laura Loomer has dominated fundraising numbers and is crushing the polls, but Big Tech is intervening in an attempt to halt her campaign’s momentum.

Loomer announced on free speech platform Gab that Facebook is banning her campaign ads in what could be considered a form of electoral interference.

“This newest ban goes beyond just a ban of the Laura Loomer For Congress Facebook Page (which is required to run ads). My campaign was told yesterday that if a PAC attempted to advertise to promote my campaign, their ads would be taken down. Facebook said their new policy is that nothing about Laura Loomer is permitted on Facebook and for the duration of the election cycle, my campaign will not get access to run any of our own ads,” Loomer wrote.

“People will be banned for simply typing my name “Laura Loomer”. We have received several reports today from supporters who said their pages were suspended because the posted my donation link and my ads!” she added.

take our poll - story continues below

RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • RIOTS: Who do you blame for the violence on America's streets?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Loomer said in a statement provided to different media outlets that this should be considered criminal electoral interference because her primary competitor, incumbent Democrat Lois Frankel, is allowed to publish ads on Facebook’s vast monopoly platform.

“I’m the only federal candidate in the nation banned from advertising on Facebook. My competitor, Lois Frankel is running ads on Facebook to reach voters, and my campaign is shut out. This is illegal election interference,” Loomer said.

“If the idea of banning Lois Frankel from advertising on Facebook outrages you, you should be equally outraged over the fact that my campaign is universally de-platformed and is being denied equal access to run ads on Facebook,” she added.

Loomer is currently suing Facebook and other tech giants due to her arbitrary removal from the platform, as Big League Politics has reported:

According to Allum Bokhari of Breitbart, Facebook has demanded a federal judge in Miami to immediately dismiss a defamation lawsuit that Laura Loomer brought against them.

Facebook put forward the argument that its decision to ban her as a “dangerous individual” does not fall under the grounds of defamation.

Facebook filed a motion to dismiss where it argued that “calling someone ‘dangerous’— or saying that she ‘promoted or ‘engaged’ in ‘hate’— is a protected statement of opinion.”

Facebook called attention to how other platforms have banned her and stated that “this is clearly an issue where, at a minimum, reasonable minds can disagree.”

Additionally, the motion cited Loomer’s appearances with Gavin McInnes, another individual that Facebook labeled as “dangerous”, as a justification for deplatforming her.

Breitbart News exclusively revealed a year ago that Facebook takes into account off-site behavior to determine whether certain users get deplatformed.

Bokhari noted that Facebook engages in the monitoring of “the on-platform and off-platform activities of prominent political individuals in an internal file called ‘Hate Agent policy review’.”

Loomer aims to become the next U.S. Representative in Florida’s 21st Congressional district in spite of the Big Tech conspiracy gunning for her.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending