Federal Judge Rules FB Is Above The Law, Conservatives Have No Right To Speak


A federal judge has blocked a new Florida law that was going to enable the state to penalize tech tyrant social media companies when they arbitrarily ban political candidates. The judge is saying that the law likely violates free speech rights.

So let’s get this straight. A law designed to protect the free speech rights of political candidates is a violation of free speech rights. It makes you wonder who got to the judge?

On Wednesday, US District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued a preliminary injunction that blocks enforcement of the law, which was supposed to take effect on Thursday.

“This order preliminarily enjoins enforcement of the parts of the legislation that are preempted or violate the First Amendment,” the judge said in the order filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District Of Florida.

“The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim that these statutes violate the First Amendment,” Hinkle wrote.

The First Amendment guarantees citizens the right to free speech.

Two tech trade groups are the ones who filed a lawsuit against the state of Florida back in May over the new law.

The lawsuit stated that the bill signed into law back in May was unconstitutional. It was filed by internet lobbying groups NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Members of the groups include Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

If the argument they are making is that the free speech of the tech tyrant companies, who violate people’s free speech every day of the year, then they can no longer claim to be a platform. Being categorized as a platform gives social media companies freedom from liability for what people say on their platforms. A platform claims to just be the medium where users can go to post what’s on their minds. A publisher is where the publisher itself decides what goes onto its site.

For example, someone can’t just write an article and post it on the New York Times website. The New York Times decides what articles and stories and op-eds go on their pages. That makes them a publisher and because they are the ones who decide what goes on their site they are held liable for anything someone writes that could be libelous. Not so for platforms. Platforms claim to be open to anyone who wants to post there, but tech tyrant platforms have gone woke and they censor, suspend, and ban conservatives who post speech that does not agree with the leftist tech tyrants.

The Sunshine State was going to be the first to regulate how tech tyrants moderate online speech. The law would have made it easier for Florida’s attorney general to sue social media companies for imposing speech moderation on users arbitrarily and unfairly.

Bozo clowns claiming to be Internet law experts criticized the Florida law as unconstitutional claiming the law was already pre-empted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the federal law I already mentioned that protects online companies from liability over content posted by users. But this isn’t a tech company being protected from liability over someone’s post. This is completely different. This is a tech company saying someone cannot use their services because they don’t vote the same way they do. That’s it in a nutshell.

Former President Donald Trump went through having his posts labeled as “misinformation” went they weren’t, and eventually, his account was banned from Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. They claim he was banned because of the January 6 riot at the Capitol which they accuse Trump of inciting, without any real evidence, but they were just itching to ban him, anyway.

The ruling makes no sense. The law was created to protect political candidates from being censored by tech companies that are protected from liability for what their users post. If anything, platforms should allow any and all free speech outside of threatening to physically harm someone, so they are censoring free speech based on political bias and that makes them no different from the New York Times deciding what speech goes onto their website.

0 thoughts on “Federal Judge Rules FB Is Above The Law, Conservatives Have No Right To Speak

      1. What else. He was put in office by Bill Clinton and we know that Clinton would not put a republican in there.

        1. Ooops, sorry I did not see your comment til after I hit “send”.  But, at least, we both read the same thing:)  🙂

      2. Obvious answer – -YES; black robe Hinkle was appointed by slick willy himself, according to the article.

  1. Yes it is a violation of free speech, every time we speak for OUR political candidate Fuckerberk cancels our free speech for his own candidate.

    1. Just a suspicion, but either the Tallahassee black robes does NOT have two functioning braincells, OR he has been handsomely rewarded to twist the facts. Next stop – -Supreme Court!!

  2. “”On Wednesday, US District Judge Robert Hinkle in Tallahassee, a Bill Clinton appointee….””. Well there, no need to read this article any further since that line explains everything from that point on.

  3. Here are 7 at-home jobs that pay at least $100/day. And there’s quite the variety too! Some of these work-at-home jobs are more specialized, others are jobs that anyone can do. They all pay at least $3000/month, but some pay as much as $10,000.GO HOME PAGE HERE FOR MORE DETAILS… paybuzz.22web.org/

  4. This is why some of these corrupt idiots need to be taken out by patriotic citizens and I don’t mean fired from his office.

    1. You got that right, warm up the torches and the rails, get the pitchforks ready…and an AR or two…or better yet 12.ga shotguns that buydung recommends LOL

  5. I believe all social media that invites anyone to joining Their media pages is part of the PUBLIC DOMAIN. .They can still be private compnies but as they openly invite every person and their dog to join they have summarily dismissed the 75 year waiting period that books movies etc wait before being declared in the PUBLIC DOMAIN ,. Remember no one is asked to pay a fee to join  a social media page. It is free. Public domain allows everyone to use their product without a license. The ACLU should be a leaderto declare all social media is in the public domain, open to all.


  7. First, could there be a partisan element to Judge Hinkle’s decision?  Without going through a lot of research, he was appointed by Bill Clinton, you remember the disbared former presient who assaulted an intern in the oval office.

  8. 𝐈 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 $𝟏𝟐𝟎 𝐭𝐨 $𝟏𝟑𝟎 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐈 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝟑 𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲 $𝟏𝟓𝐤 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐩𝐲 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐞….. <(“) HERE →→  http://www.fullwork.cf

  9. Oh I get it.  This judge is saying FakeBook can censure conservatives but not consider equivalent statements from the political left to be censured as well?
    Thiswould never stand in the Supreme Court.

  10. So, is the State of Florida going to appeal this biased judges edict? Section 230 should be declared moot as defined by State rights. State rights supercede Federal law when social media tyrants are obviously acting as publishers and only the most stupid, assine judges could be that blind. I guarantee that if this goes to the Supremes, the media tyrants will be financially whiplashed.

  11. ⁣⁣I make more then $12,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 11 to 12 hours a week from home. I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it…
    GOOD LUCK..HERE ➤➤ http://Www.Webcash1.Com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *