- The technology industry challenged the law, which was set to take effect on Thursday, saying it would violate the First Amendment rights of online businesses.
- Florida lawmakers approved legislation after Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trump’s accounts following the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
Wednesday night a federal judge blocked a Florida law that would be punish social media companies The suspension of former President Donald Trump is still a blow to conservatives, and YouTube censors Facebook, Twitter and Google accusing right-wing views of censoring politicians’ speech.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle for the Northern District of Florida said the law, which would have compelled social media companies to deliver speech even if it violated their rules, would likely be found unconstitutional.
technology industry challenged the law, which was set to take effect on Thursday, saying it would violate the First Amendment rights of online businesses.
“Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that these statutes violate the First Amendment,” Hinkle wrote. “There is nothing that can be taken apart and survives.”
Florida lawmakers approved legislation after Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trump’s accounts following the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.
‘This is my full time job’:How Twitch became a platform for creators to make money
‘Alexa, let’s read’:Amazon’s AI assistant can read books with your kids, helping them learn to read
It was signed in May by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Trump aide and potential 2024 presidential candidate, who backed the legislation as a necessary crackdown on the unbridled power of social media companies.
DeSantis could not be immediately reached for comment on Wednesday.
Under the law, the state would be able to fine large social media companies $250,000 a day if they delete a statewide political candidate’s account and $25,000 a day if they found someone seeking local office. Delete the person’s account. This requires social media companies to notify users within seven days that they may be censored, giving them time to correct the post.
Two technology trade groups, NetChoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association, claimed that Florida was attempting to censor free speech and expression by forcing social media companies to host speeches and speakers they disagreed with.
His lawsuit alleged that Florida’s new law was a “blatant attack” on content moderation options, with social media companies protecting the public and advertisers from pornography, terrorist provocation, false propaganda by foreign actors, genocide or race-based violence. daily for. Vaccines against COVID-19 propaganda, fraudulent schemes and other harmful, objectionable or illegal content.
“America’s judiciary system is designed to protect our constitutional rights, and today’s ruling is no different, ensuring that Florida’s politically motivated law prohibits Floridians from using racial adjectives, offensive homosexuality, pornographic material, beheading or The use of other gruesome content does not compel the Internet,” NetChoice vice president and general counsel Carl Szabo said in a statement.
Legal experts also questioned the feasibility of the law.
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told USA Today that Florida law was bound to face legal challenges because some provisions of the new law are “clearly unconstitutional.”
“The Supreme Court has made it clear that publishers have the freedom to pick and choose what content they want to publish, and the bill clearly attempts to strip publishers of that freedom,” he said. “Florida residents should expect better from their legislators, and now they see their tax dollars defending an uncertain bill that should never have been passed.”
