Hacker News Reader

Comment by lettergram | Hacker News Reader

For reference, Texas, North Dakota, and more are also passing laws. I suspect you'll see at least five to ten states passing similar legislation in the next 1-3 years.

It's a huge boon to Florida. Content producers concerned about being banned (or have been banned) are effectively risking their business for not being based out of Florida. If you run a business, you should not put your company at an unnecessary disadvantage with no recourse.

The end result of this is going to be thousands of political commentators, comedians, musicians, professors, artists, etc moving to Florida. Their families and people they support would also move, more immigration to Florida.

View on HN

Editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment as well. I don't see this law lasting very long.

I do not believe this to be the case.

This will not play out well for FL in courts. Just because you can sue someone does not mean that you should, as you can fail and waste taxpayer monies in this scenario. There is a U.S. Supreme Court case out of MIA that is almost directly applicable [1].

[1] https://casetext.com/case/miami-herald-publishing-co-v-torni...

> The first amendment makes it clear that the government cannot regulate what a business AKA free enterprise can or cannot say.

This is effectively saying you can't refuse service on social media platforms. It's similar to protections provided by the civil rights act.

I agree this will be litigated, but I think it'll be fine in the courts OR the civil rights act will be in jeopardy (and would go to the supreme court). I'm not 100% sure how the supreme court would rule on this either.

You can absolutely refuse service, and this law has no relation to the protections in the Civil Rights Act as it does concern a protected class, and in fact empowers a privileged class (the government) over private enterprise.

"Protected class" was a creation of the legislature. The principle of Civil Rights Act is that Congress has the power to designate a group of people that businesses are not allowed to refuse service to.

So if we take that the legislature has that ability, then this law should be ok. If the legislature does not have that ability, then the Civil Rights Act would be in danger.

>designate a group of people that businesses are not allowed to refuse service to

I don't think the bill itself even claims it is doing that.

I look forward to someone arguing in court that politicians represent a uniquely oppressed minority for whom the state has a vested interest in protecting such that personal property rights are no longer relevant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com