> The law carved out an unusual exemption for tech companies that happen to also own large theme parks, which would benefit Disney and Comcast, the latter of which owns NBCUniversal including Universal Theme Parks.<p>Tells you all you need to know about this law.
Oh well...I'd been looking forward to seeing how big the stampede of scammers, pornographers, and the like registering to run for various state and local offices in Florida so they could take advantage of this law was going to be.
This is why corporations need constitutional rights--something I have seen the left trying to strip away during the last 10 years or so.<p>Yes, a corporation isn't a person per se, but it is a group of people. To decide which websites have free speech rights and which do not based on their organizational or tax structure is both arbitrary and unfair.
Its now speech to hit the delete button on someone else's speech? confusing!<p>perhaps free speech should fall back to what it used to be, you can say anything except illegal forms, and then platforms can remove only those illegal forms, la a NAP [1] for speech itself<p>Platforms owning the world's communications but not being subject to aspects in the constitution to protect citizens rights, isn't something that should be considered sustainable, a good read in this, which probably wouldn't fly today, is Marsh vs Alabama [2]<p>The government fell behind in the digital era, there is no public sidewalks on the internet, no public buildings, etc. The concept of free speech, is not protected on the biggest, most popular, communication medium. Why even have free speech at this point, except for perversion by corporations-pretending-to-have-citizen-rights<p>1: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle</a><p>2: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama</a>