Monopolies that control the marketplace of ideas deplatforming people, including, in the case of the Florida law, political candidates, doesn’t violate free speech. But requiring basic consumer law compliance from them, you bet that violates free speech, says a Democrat judge.
A federal judge Wednesday put on hold a first-of-its-kind law in Florida that authorized the state to penalize social media companies when they ban political candidates…
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, which was scheduled to go into effect Thursday.
Hinkle said the law’s ban on “deplatforming” likely violated the free speech rights of the tech companies
Corporations aren’t people, howl Democrats, except when it comes to their right to control free speech in America.
Hinkle is a Clinton appointee and his rationale is transparently absurd while accepting the transparently absurd rationale of Big Tech.
In 1948, the first program ran on a computer. It was also the year that George Orwell finished 1984 with its infamous slogan, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Slavery is Freedom.” Big Tech’s version of it is, “Free Speech is Censorship” and “Censorship is Free Speech.”
When Big Tech censors millions of Americans, it’s engaging in free speech. And when those Americans rise up and fight back against their illegal monopolies, that’s censorship.
Big Tech’s position is that only its monopolies have free speech and they should use that speech to deny everyone else free speech. That’s a surreal mockery of the First Amendment.
If censorship is speech, and speech is censorship, then the First Amendment is reduced to the right to censor opponents of the Dems.
But back to the Clinton judge who has been a reliable voice on enforcing Democrat policies against Americans.
“The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards — speech they otherwise would not host — and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would,” he wrote.
Referring to the sweeping scope of the law, he added: “Like prior First Amendment restrictions, this is an instance of burning the house to roast a pig.”
It’s not a First Amendment restriction. If it were, then virtually any legislation involving politics on platforms would be. Democrats are not proposing to dismantle the FCC because it’s burning the house to roast a pig.
Furthermore, the house is the marketplace of ideas, while the pig is political content that Democrats hate.
Hinkle said that statements from DeSantis and others showed the law to be “viewpoint-based” discrimination.
Remedying viewpoint-based discrimination, the Clinton judge argues, is viewpoint-based discrimination.
“The legislation now at issue was an effort to rein in social-media providers deemed too large and too liberal,” he wrote. But, he added, “Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest.”
It’s not a “legitimate governmental interest” to balance “exchange of ideas” between Facebook, a social media monopoly that controls 80% of social media… and the individuals it censors, including candidates for public office?
Mark Zuckerberg and Pete from Orlando are equally “private speakers”?
Hinkle’s ruling is a joke that literally recapitulates Twitter talking points that have nothing to do with the case.
“The judge also questioned why the law discriminates against social media providers that are not under common ownership with a theme park. In a nod to Disney, companies were excluded from the law if they operate “a theme park or entertainment complex.”
Which major social media network does Disney run? Hinkle all but let the Huffington Post write his ruling for him which argues that social media monopolies have a right to censor Americans, while Americans have no rights whatsoever.
Leave a Reply