Florida governor to sign into law a bill punishing social media firms for “deplatforming” politicians, which would likely face a constitutional challenge
Florida is on track to be the first state in the nation to punish social media companies that ban politicians …
NBC News
Context & Ripple Effects
Florida is moving from political criticism of platform moderation to enforceable penalties for bans of candidates. Related coverage identifies the law as regulating Facebook, Twitter and other services’ moderation decisions, while carving out theme-park-owning companies in the final version of the measure.
Social-media companies operating in Florida face state penalties tied to decisions to remove political candidates, placing their existing moderation policies under direct legal pressure.
Florida’s government becomes the enforcer of rules governing private platforms’ treatment of political speech, prompting the constitutional challenge anticipated in the article.
Second-order effects
Google, Facebook and other industry-group members are pushed to contest the law collectively rather than adapt moderation rules state by state, as their subsequent lawsuit shows.
The exemption for companies that own theme parks gives affected platforms grounds to challenge not only the moderation mandate but also the law’s unequal application.
Third-order effects
The conflict establishes a recurring state-level route for contesting platform governance: Florida later pursued restrictive rules for minors’ social-media use despite similar First Amendment concerns.
If courts continue to block state mandates over editorial moderation, platform-policy fights are likely to shift toward narrower consumer-protection and youth-safety theories rather than direct limits on deplatforming.
The trend: US states are testing their ability to regulate social-media governance, while constitutional litigation constrains direct intervention in platforms’ moderation choices.
Florida's unconstitutional content moderation bill is still bad, but congrats I guess to the Disney lobbyists for getting themselves exempted: https://twitter.com/... https://twitter.com/...
“The term does not include any information service, system, Internet search engine, or access software provider operated by a company that owns and operates a theme park or entertainment complex as defined in 509.013, F.S.” https://www.flsenate.gov/... https://twitter.com/...
Maybe I'm excessively sanguine, but I half welcome this, because it's so ineptly drafted that it seems like a slam dunk to get unequivocally struck down & set precedent that deters other attempts. https://www.nbcnews.com/...
Oh, I guess you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater. In nod to Trump, Florida is set to ban ‘deplatforming’ on social media https://www.nbcnews.com/... via @nbcnews
Zuckerberg counters by building Facebookland, a theme park where half the patrons went to high school with you & the other half want to talk politics. Each time you go to the bathroom, the entire park rearranges itself before you emerge. https://twitter.com/...
This Florida anti-deplatforming legislation is something. Preempted by Section 230 (because civil penalties can't attach to content removal) and blatantly unconstitutional as coerced speech. https://www.flsenate.gov/... ht @Joey__Schafer
Everyone's focused on the Disney part of this but I'm fascinated by how this language seems to also give Comcast a leg up over other ISPs (as it's an information service that happens to operate a massive theme parks business). Am I misreading this? https://t.co/5pI1GuOan1