Ron Desantis and the 1st Amendment

[GMDino]

How it started:

https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/florida-legislature-proposes-strip-first-amendment-rights-protestors-2021-01-07/

Note I'd imagine this is *slightly* biased but the link to the bills is there so I used it.

Quote:Florida Legislature Proposes to Strip First Amendment Rights of Protestors

Bills Respond to Gov. DeSantis’ Call to Curtail Free Speech, Right to Assembly

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla.— Identical bills proposed by the Florida Senate and House would dramatically curtail free speech and the right to assembly and slash legal protections for protestors while increasing penalties for damaging a “memorial.”

The bills were proposed on Wednesday in response to Gov. Ron DeSantis’ call for lawmakers to limit protestors’ First Amendment rights to speech and assembly in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests.

“These shockingly un-American bills seek to unconstitutionally silence the voices of those fighting for racial justice and equality, and by extension any citizens trying to speak up for what they believe is right, from the protection of people to the protection of the environment and wildlife,” said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Floridians will not stand for this dangerous lurch toward fascism.”

Senate Bill 484, filed by newly elected Sen. Danny Burgess (R-Tampa), along with its companion bill, House Bill 1, filed by Rep. Juan Fernandez-Barquin (R-Miami), would:

• Authorize a resident of a municipality to file an appeal challenging any reduction to the operating budget of that municipality’s law enforcement agency;
• Deny the First Amendment right to assemble by making it unlawful to stand or walk in a public street, regardless of whether you have a permit to lawfully do so;
• Waive sovereign immunity for any municipality that “intentionally obstructs or interferes” with its law enforcement agency’s efforts to provide law enforcement protection during a riot or “unlawful assembly”;
• Prohibit two or more people from compelling or inducing another person by force or “threat of force” to assume or abandon a particular viewpoint;
• Increase the penalties for an assault or battery if it is committed in furtherance of any gathering declared to be a riot;
• Require anyone arrested during a protest to be held in jail until their first court appearance;
• Make it a felony to damage a “memorial”; and
• Create an affirmative defense to a civil action where the victim of an injury, death, or property damage is accused of participating in a riot or “unlawful assembly.”
  
  

More:

https://www.news-journalonline.com/story/news/politics/state/2020/09/22/dems-desantis-protest-proposal-attack-1st-amendment-rights/3496529001/

Quote:TALLAHASSEE --- Gov. Ron DeSantis suggested Tuesday that the Republican-dominated Legislature could consider a controversial proposal aimed at cracking down on disorderly protests when lawmakers return to Tallahassee in November for an organization session, as Democrats declared war on what they decried as a racially motivated election-year ploy.

DeSantis’ law-and-order package, backed by incoming GOP legislative leaders, would create new felony crimes when property is damaged or when people are injured as a result of protests involving seven or more individuals. The measure would also make it a crime to obstruct traffic during unpermitted protests or demonstrations and do away with bail or bond for people involved in violent protests.


The proposal comes as Republicans double down on efforts to deliver a second presidential victory to Trump in Florida, a battleground state with 29 prized electoral votes, on Nov. 3.

“It’s going to have broad support, certainly from the Republican caucuses, in both chambers. It may be something that you need to act,” DeSantis told reporters following a state Cabinet meeting Tuesday. “Florida has handled it better, but at the same time, you constantly hear these reports of unrest. You hear threats of more unrest. That is not something that we want to deal with, without having all the tools at our disposal.”

More:Florida Gov. DeSantis calls for tougher laws on protesters

Lawmakers are slated to return to the Capitol on Nov. 17 for an organization session where incoming Senate President Wilton Simpson, R-Trilby, and incoming House Speaker Chris Sprowls, R-Palm Harbor, will take over as leaders of their respective chambers. Organization sessions are largely ceremonial and typically last just a day, but DeSantis also could call a special session to take up the protest proposal.

“If we have a special session, it would definitely be a priority bill that would be included,” Simpson said in an email when asked Tuesday about DeSantis’ remarks.

But Democrats blasted DeSantis’ plan, calling it an unconstitutional attack on First Amendment rights and an undisguised attempt to galvanize support for the Republican president in a state with a history of narrow elections.

“Let’s be extremely clear about something: This is a blatant overreach from the governor and Republicans who are actively undermining the Constitution,” state Rep. Shevrin Jones, a West Park Democrat who is running for the state Senate, told reporters during a video conference Tuesday afternoon.

Jones said the country was “built and shaped as a result of peaceful demonstrations and protests.”

DeSantis’ proposal “is a desperate violation of our constitutional rights just ahead of a critical election in which every single vote counts,” Jones added.

“This is an active, intentional effort to depress turnout and participation in the democratic process. It’s an insult,” Jones said.

Jones and other Black leaders also accused DeSantis of using the legislative proposal as a ploy to incite fear among white voters.

“What you’re doing is you’re putting back into law historical things that we’ve worked very hard to get rid of. And what I’m speaking to specifically are black codes, which were pre-Jim Crow laws … that prohibited groups of African Americans from being able to gather,” New Florida Majority political director Dwight Bullard, a former state senator, said. “It’s fascinating what the governor is trying to do because we always call it dog whistling, but it’s no longer dog whistling when everybody hears it.”

DeSantis’ proposal would also increase penalties for striking law enforcement officers during violent protests and impose harsher sentences on protesters who throw objects that hit a law enforcement officer or “civilian” and on protesters who travel to Florida from other states.

The plan released Monday came after months of protests throughout the country in response to the disparate treatment of Black people by police and amid a national reckoning about centuries of racial inequities in other facets of society.

Rep. Fentrice Driskell, D-Tampa, said DeSantis’ legislative package raised the specter of the death of George Floyd, a 46-year old Black man who died in May while former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeled on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

“Just speaking to the voters out there who may be feeling afraid or who may be feeling like it’s the government putting its knee on your neck, because a lot of people were upset yesterday,” Driskell, an attorney, said. “Please understand that this November, you have to exercise your power to vote.”

The governor acknowledged that Florida has largely escaped the violence that’s erupted in other states but maintained that his proposal is designed to ensure people remain safe.

“There’s a difference between protests and there’s a difference between violence. Protest all you want. Knock your socks off, but when it goes into violence, that’s when there has to be accountability. That’s what we are looking to do,” DeSantis said Tuesday.

Democrats assailed the governor for prioritizing a crackdown on protests over other problems beleaguering Floridians, such as a troubled unemployment-compensation system, rising numbers of COVID-19 deaths and uncertainty about the state’s financial future.

“We all know what this is. This is a desperate ploy to distract Floridians from DeSantis’ own deadly and reckless record and his indifference to just the pain and suffering of vulnerable Floridians,” Rep. Carlos Guillermo Smith, D-Orlando, told reporters. “The first thing he wants is to crack down on protesters who did the very same thing that Martin Luther King Jr. and Congressman John Lewis did in 1965 when they shut down the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.”

Sen. Oscar Braynon, a Miami Gardens Democrat who is not seeking re-election due to term limits, dared DeSantis to immediately order lawmakers to convene a special session.

“If you want to hear what we have to say about your proposal, call us into special session right now,” Braynon said. “You will find out that people are protesting because of racial inequality. People are protesting because they are upset about the way policing happens in the state of Florida. People are protesting because this has been an issue for a long time.”

DeSantis’ proposal would also punish local governments that reduce spending on law enforcement agencies, by withholding state funds and grants.

Cities and counties are struggling financially because DeSantis has done “such a piss-poor job with COVID and their budgets are hurting right now,” Braynon said.

“These are all the things you’ll find out in a special session,” he added.

Democratic legislators, who are outnumbered in the House and the Senate, vowed to fight “tooth and nail” to defeat the governor’s plan.

“With all due respect sir, you just declared war on our civil rights,” Jones said.

--- News Service Assignment Manager Tom Urban contributed to this report.

How it's going:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1356700022109179904.html

[/url]

Quote:#Thread @GovRonDeSantis Announcing Steps The State Of Florida Will Take To Deal With Big Tech

"These platforms have played an increasingly decisive role in elections, and have negatively impacted Americans who dissent from orthodoxies favored by the Big Tech Cartel." 1/ 

.@GovRonDeSantis Announcing Some Of The New Regulations The State Of Florida Will Seek To Enact To Deal With Big Tech & How They Will Be Enforced 2/ 

.@GovRonDeSantis: "Under our proposal, if a technology company de-platforms a candidate for elected office in Florida during an election that company will face a daily fine of $100k until the candidate's access to the platform is restored." 3/ 
.@GovRonDeSantis: "The message is loud & clear: when it comes to elections in Florida, Big Tech should stay out of it."

"We can't allow Floridians' privacy to be violated, their voices & even their livelihoods diminished, and their elections interfered with." 4/ 

.@GovRonDeSantis Calling Out Journalists Defending Big Tech & The Censorship Of Hunter Biden Story: “You're trying to tell me if there was hacked information that could damage me, you wouldn't print it? Give me a break. You can whiz on my leg, but don’t tell me it’s raining." 5/ 
.@GovRonDeSantis On The Destruction Of Parler By Big Tech & Big Tech's Ability To Completely Wipe Out The Platform Of A Political Candidate They Don't Like 6/ 

.@GovRonDeSantis Calling Out Big Tech's Double Standard When It Comes To Elections 7/ 
Florida @GovRonDeSantis Launches Ambitious Crackdown on Big Tech

"This is the widest and most aggressive range of regulatory and legislative solutions so far proposed by any U.S. state to tackle the problem of tech censorship." -@LibertarianBlue 8/


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Launches Ambitious Crackdown on Big TechFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis ® announced a major push to curb Big Tech's political bias and censorship today, with measures including a ban on the censorship of political candidates and mandatory opt-o…https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/02/florida-gov-ron-desantis-launches-ambitious-crackdown-on-big-tech/
List Of The New Regulations @GovRonDeSantis Is Proposing To Deal With Big Tech 9/
breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/0…

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Launches Ambitious Crackdown on Big TechFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis ® announced a major push to curb Big Tech's political bias and censorship today, with measures including a ban on the censorship of political candidates and mandatory opt-o…https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/02/florida-gov-ron-desantis-launches-ambitious-crackdown-on-big-tech/
"@GovRonDeSantis accused the tech giants of 'clear viewpoint discrimination,' highlighting the censorship of Donald Trump and the removal of Parler from the internet and Apple and Google-controlled app stores." -@LibertarianBlue 10/


Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis Launches Ambitious Crackdown on Big TechFlorida Gov. Ron DeSantis ® announced a major push to curb Big Tech's political bias and censorship today, with measures including a ban on the censorship of political candidates and mandatory opt-o…https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/02/02/florida-gov-ron-desantis-launches-ambitious-crackdown-on-big-tech/
The Biden Administration's Very Different Approach To Big Tech Censorship 11/





.@TuckerCarlson & @ggreenwald Discussing The Power Of Big Tech 12/

Unroll available on Thread Reader



[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]• • •[/color]
[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)]Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh[/color]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.84)][url=https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1356700022109179904.html#][/color]
All the videos of Desantis whining are at the link.

[NATI BENGALS]

Your god damn right. I will force feed you donald trump tweets until you assault the capital.

[Au165]

What would be funny if "Big Tech" simply disabled access to their sites in the state of Florida. If they refuse to do business in Florida it will crush Florida's economy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: What would be funny if "Big Tech" simply disabled access to their sites in the state of Florida. If they refuse to do business in Florida it will crush Florida's economy.

Yeah, let's let corporations have an outsized influence on our government, what's the worst that could happen?

Funny indeed.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, let's let corporations have an outsized influence on our government, what's the worst that could happen?

Funny indeed.

I mean citizens united already gave corporations an outsized influence on government. This is merely allowing a business to decide who they do or don't service, which last time I checked was in fact their right.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 12:22 PM)Au165 Wrote: I mean citizens united already gave corporations an outsized influence on government. This is merely allowing a business to decide who they do or don't service, which last time I checked was in fact their right.

Is it a business's right not to make a cake for a gay couple?  I'm not trying to start a thing here, but what you advocated sounds like the start of something ominous.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 12:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is it a business's right not to make a cake for a gay couple?  I'm not trying to start a thing here, but what you advocated sounds like the start of something ominous.

Is being gay a protected class? Refusing service to someone based on something that falls under a protected class is different than a blanket refusal of service to everyone regardless of class.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 12:37 PM)Au165 Wrote: Is being gay a protected class? Refusing service to someone based on something that falls under a protected class is different than a blanket refusal of service to everyone regardless of class.

I am aware.  What you're advocating is essentially for business to dictate what political party can be in power in order for them to supply a service.  If this actually started happening it should be nipped in the bud, immediately.  The ramifications of that type of action are far too serious.  You'll note that I'm not making any distinction between political parties when I say this.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am aware.  What you're advocating is essentially for business to dictate what political party can be in power in order for them to supply a service.  If this actually started happening it should be nipped in the bud, immediately.  The ramifications of that type of action are far too serious.  You'll note that I'm not making any distinction between political parties when I say this.

It didn't start happening, that is another disinformation campaign. This is all, these laws, are based on a false narrative being pushed that "big tech" is pushing back against conservatives. New NYU research shows claims of conservative censorship in "big tech" is false and actually another disinformation campaign.

This is a law based on a false narrative that didn't occur. The companies are free to operate where they want and reject who they want as long as they are not a protected class. Telling a company they HAVE to serve someone because of who they are, not a class but their job, is a slippery slope you simply can't start down.

[GMDino]

(02-03-2021, 12:07 PM)Au165 Wrote: What would be funny if "Big Tech" simply disabled access to their sites in the state of Florida. If they refuse to do business in Florida it will crush Florida's economy.

Besides being probably unconstitutional I'm reading that there is a problem that is unenforceable given that those companies are not based in Florida.

More to the point Desantis seems to think protests need to be stopped when he disagrees with them but private companies can't control what is on their sites.

ie: He's a Republican.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Besides being probably unconstitutional I'm reading that there is a problem that is unenforceable given that those companies are not based in Florida.

More to the point Desantis seems to think protests need to be stopped when he disagrees with them but private companies can't control what is on their sites.

ie: He's a Republican.

Yea, this probably falls under federal jurisdiction because of interstate commerce. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 01:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: It didn't start happening, that is another disinformation campaign. This is all, these laws, are based on a false narrative being pushed that "big tech" is pushing back against conservatives. New NYU research shows claims of conservative censorship in "big tech" is false and actually another disinformation campaign.

This is a law based on a false narrative that didn't occur. The companies are free to operate where they want and reject who they want as long as they are not a protected class. Telling a company they HAVE to serve someone because of who they are, not a class but their job, is a slippery slope you simply can't start down.

You're now changing the argument.  However, I am pleased we both agree that what you originally advocated for should not happen.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 01:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're now changing the argument.  However, I am pleased we both agree that what you originally advocated for should not happen.

No, the argument hasn't changed there is no bias in politics occurring however the person who has pushed this law has stated there is and specifically towards Conservatives, which is a false statement and part of a disinformation campaign.

Also, I am still advocating that businesses should be able to operate how they choose where they choose. They should be able to reject any customer they like based on anything that isn't a protected class. Now, do we want to make political affiliation a protected class? I think that is an interesting argument.

Edited: to add the piece on political affiliation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 01:25 PM)Au165 Wrote: No, the argument hasn't changed there is no bias in politics occurring however the person who has pushed this law has stated there is and specifically towards Conservatives, which is a false statement and part of a disinformation campaign.

I don't disagree with this, but you stated it would be "funny" if big tech started to refuse to do business with the state of Florida.  I pointed out how horrible an idea this was.  If you're backing off that then we're good.

Quote:Also, I am still advocating that businesses should be able to operate how they choose where they choose. They should be able to reject any customer they like based on anything that isn't a protected class. 

You're making a good case to make political affiliation a protected class, something I don't think either of us believe should happen.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with this, but you stated it would be "funny" if big tech started to refuse to do business with the state of Florida.  I pointed out how horrible an idea this was.  If you're backing off that then we're good.


You're making a good case to make political affiliation a protected class, something I don't think either of us believe should happen.

It would be funny because of the lack of foresight into the ramifications of trying to tell the business, which they don't have oversight over, how they have to operate.

I actually just added that somewhere else that it's an interesting topic to discuss. If we think political affiliation may be weaponized as rhetoric gets ratcheted up maybe it's a discussion worth having?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 01:43 PM)Au165 Wrote: It would be funny because of the lack of foresight into the ramifications of trying to tell the business, which they don't have oversight over, how they have to operate.

I actually just added that somewhere else that it's an interesting topic to discuss. If we think political affiliation may be weaponized as rhetoric gets ratcheted up maybe it's a discussion worth having?

It's already started and I agree.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

I find it hilarious that Big Tech is making a stand against the spreading of false information and Conservatives view it as an attack on them.

This tells a Hell of a lot more about Conservatives than it does about Big Tech.

[Belsnickel]

(02-03-2021, 03:13 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: I find it hilarious that Big Tech is making a stand against the spreading of false information and Conservatives view it as an attack on them.

This tells a Hell of a lot more about Conservatives than it does about Big Tech.

The problem is, and I mentioned this before, is that Republicans are more apt to spread misinformation than Democrats. Not saying Democrats don't do it, just that Republicans are more apt to. Facebook noted this at one point, saying that if they applied the rules strictly and objectively, it would still result in right-leaning users being affected at a higher rate.

If they want to stop being shut down on the social media platforms, then maybe they should stop lying. Just a thought.

[GMDino]

(02-03-2021, 05:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is, and I mentioned this before, is that Republicans are more apt to spread misinformation than Democrats. Not saying Democrats don't do it, just that Republicans are more apt to. Facebook noted this at one point, saying that if they applied the rules strictly and objectively, it would still result in right-leaning users being affected at a higher rate.

If they want to stop being shut down on the social media platforms, then maybe they should stop lying. Just a thought.

Why do you hate freedom?!?! 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 05:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is, and I mentioned this before, is that Republicans are more apt to spread misinformation than Democrats. Not saying Democrats don't do it, just that Republicans are more apt to. Facebook noted this at one point, saying that if they applied the rules strictly and objectively, it would still result in right-leaning users being affected at a higher rate.

If they want to stop being shut down on the social media platforms, then maybe they should stop lying. Just a thought.

I don't disagree with your general point.  I will say that social media platforms do not enforce their ToS's in an equitable manner. I really wish I could find the article, but for a period of about six months a guy flagged tweets that berated men, heterosexuals and white people.  In every instance the tweet was found not to be in violation of the ToS (he posted the e-mails from Twitter saying this as well as links to the still active tweet).  He then, using several different accounts, posted the exact same tweets, only replacing men with women, heterosexuals with homosexuals or transgenders, and white with several other ethnicities.  In every instance his tweet was taken down within days and his accounts suspended.  Now, I am fully aware that the guy could have been cherry picking, but he sourced his article very well with links and archived tweets he made that were deleted.

Hell, Jack flat out stated Twitter has a liberal bias.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/08/19/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-left-leaning-bias-says-it-doesnt-influence-company-policy/