Source: http://12160.info/forum/topics/florida-lawmaker-introduces-stop-social-media-censorship-act-to-p?commentId=2649739%3AComment%3A1895452&xg_source=activity
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:31:02+00:00

Document:
The law would only apply to social media sites with "more than 75 million subscribers" which are "open to the public" and from their inception have "not been specifically affiliated with any one religion or political party."
The bill also prohibits large social media sites from citing so-called "hate speech" as a justification for political and religious censorship and authorizes the Attorney General to "bring a civil cause of action ... on behalf of a social media website user who resides in this state and whose religious speech or political speech has been censored..."
The bill makes clear it would allow social media sites to censor "calls for immediate acts of violence," "obscene or pornographic" material, that which "entices criminal conduct" and that which "involves minors bullying minors."
13 providing an effective date.
31 perform a specific task.
44 administration, law, or civil aspects of government.
49 what happens after death.
57 with any one religion or political party.
65 religious speech or political speech.
69 deletion or censoring of the social media website user’s speech.
71 3. If aggravating factors are present, punitive damages.
72 4. Other forms of equitable relief.
74 section may be awarded costs and reasonable attorney fees.
81 or defense of the social media website’s actions at trial.
85 political speech has been censored by a social media website.
97 7. Involves minors bullying minors.
99 social media website user’s speech.
101 standing to seek enforcement of this act.
102 Section 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2019.
This is a superb bill which every Floridian needs to pressure their representatives to get behind and state lawmakers across the country need to introduce in their own states as well.
Yes apparently there's still some sanity left around. I wonder how far this bill will get.
Considering that the "voice of sanity" is coming from within an asylum where he is surrounded by the criminally insane, I doubt it will get very far, if it even gets heard.
You're right of course. This situation illustrates how the Lefty/Globalists are presently using the Constitution as a door mat.
That being said a corporation is a creature creation of the state. Therefore if the state is prohibited from silencing it's population freedom of political speech. Can the states creation do so also? The answer is those corporation have exceeded their authority and by law Quo Warranto can have their corporations taken from them by the states.
A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the respondant to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.
The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on the respondant, not on the demandant.
By itself, the writ does not seek the support of the court to order the respondant to cease the exercise or vacate the office. That would be an accompanying writ of prohibito or a writ of mandamus. All such writs contemplate enforcement by the people as militia, although that could include the sheriff or constable as commander of militia. The right involved is that of the respondant to present his evidence.
These writs are called prerogative writs because they are supposed to be docketed ahead of all other cases except other prerogative writs. The demandant represents the sovereign, the people, and anyone may appear in that capacity, even without a personal stake in the decision.
A writ of habeas corpus may be regarded as a subset of quo warranto, for cases where the claimed power is to hold a prisoner, but with the addition of a requirement to produce the prisoner in court, not just appear to present evidence of authority.
The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writings on the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the "cases and controversies" doctrine and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.
Although some of these writings are copyrighted, we are assured that all the chapters of all the ones still copyrighted have been attached to pleadings in various cases, and thus made part of the public record, thereby putting them into the public domain.
A critical key to achieving federal constitutional compliance is to resurrect quo warranto and other common law writs. This involves reasserting and strengthening the original All-Writs Act and repealing or declaring unconstitutional legislation, such as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and those Rules of Judicial Procedure, that have restricted the jurisdiction of federal courts to accept these writs and grant a fair hearing ("oyer") and a decision on the merits ("terminer") on such demands.
The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies, Chester James Antieau, 1987, Chapter on Quo Warranto.
A Treatise on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, Embracing Mandamus, Quo Warranto and Prohibition, James L. High, 1896, Section on Quo Warranto.
A Treatise on the Legal Remedies of Mandamus and Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, Horace G. Wood, 1896, Section on Quo Warranto.
Statute of Quo Warranto (1290) — Codified the writ of quo warranto as a pleading in English courts, and laid the basis for the writ of habeas corpus.
"Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time." Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2nd 906 at 910.
"It is axiomatic that the prosecution must always prove territorial jurisdiction over a crime in order to sustain a conviction therefore." U.S. v. Benson, 495 F.2d, at 481 (5th Cir., 1974).
"The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be proven." Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).
"Where there is absence of proof of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity, and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack." Thompson v Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L. Ed. 381; and Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3 L. Ed. 471.
"the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon the party asserting it." Bindell v. City of Harvey, 212 Ill.App.3d 1042, 571 N.E.2d 1017 (1st Dist. 1991).
I pray!! Sharing this to Twitter, thank you!

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.