The Judge’s Order was just filed in our Motion seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Internet Identifier changes and WE WON!!! Source (FAC)
FL: Preliminary Injunction granted (Internet Identifiers)
- ·September 27, 2016
- ·5 Comments
Monthly Meetings: Nov 21, Dec 19 – Details / Recordings
Emotional Support Group Meetings 2020 (Phone only)
Do I see a crack in that ugly dam, in Florida? I have a dollar that this judge is not a liberal.
“The definition is hopelessly vague, chills speech protected by the First Amendment, and is far broader than necessary to serve the state’s legitimate interest in deterring or solving online sex crimes. This order grants a preliminary injunction.”
Wow substitute “online sex crimes” for “sex trafficking crimes” and you have what the idiotic judge in our IML case should have said.
We have a train Stop.. We have a train Stop in Florida !!!….
Excellent work FAC & everyone. .Excellent Work..!!
Stop this train on the railroadistry track.
O U T S T A N D I N G
From reading that order, it sure seems like a very short walk to get what the plaintiffs did not ask for in the motion declared unconstitutional, that being the 2014 “internet identifier” provision. I can tell you as a Florida regrets that the original law was specifically designed to get people thrown out of social media. Individual citizens must request info on a specific e-mail address or identifier, but Facebook can get the “master list’ which they did and banned folks like me. I would argue that this was CLEARLY the intent of these laws from the get as they provided for “special” access to social media companies from the start in 2007. Actually having the e-mail info just made it easy. The recent decision by the 6th Circuit AND the prior Georgia Federal District Court decision cited by the judge could give us the ammo that we need to kill off these types of laws in the 11th Circuit. The next battle may be against the municipalities and counties in Florida and their local housing restrictions.
On a semi-related note, has anyone ever tried to sue Facebook in California for discriminating against registrants in violation of the state law regrind access to “business services?” ? I ask this in part because Facebook’s TOS states that in any disagreement, California law will control, so that might help us folks who do not live in California. Facebook and perhaps even more so, it subsidiary Instagram is a significant vehicle for commerce these days. I know that some lawyers who represent landlords have suggested that you can get around the housing discrimination aspect by running a criminal background check and credit check and using them to deny rentals to registrants without actually using the registry, but that would not work for Facebook as they specific use the registries to boot people from their websites.