3 ms·

The point of contention here is whether the publisher should be liable in any lawsuit for non-defamatory speech. You are deliberately avoiding that point.

ceejayoz 7y ago
If that's the point of contention, maybe the article should talk a lot more about Britain's libel laws and the issues with them. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsu... That way it'll read less like a "left is mean" and more "reforming this should be a non-political, multi-partisan concern".
- shkkmo 7y ago
  The article repeatedly references legal liability as a concern and nowhere does it blame a particular side of the political spectrum.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical Conservative dog whistles in the United States. This article could be construed as being right leaning however I don't think that's the intent of the author.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      > The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical Conservative dog whistles in the United States. Dog whistles? What "secret meaning" is meant to be conveyed? > This article could be construed as being right leaning I don't see how the article can be construed as "right leaning" as there is nothing conservative or liberal about supporting free speech and the value to listening to dissenting opinions. Indeed, I think the desire to categorize arguments, article, positions or especially people as "conservative" or "liberal" rather than engaging with ideas on their merits is a distinctly negative trend that accelerates our descent into ineffectual partisan bickering. It means that anyone who takes the time to consider issues carefully and form their own opinion gets shut out as a "liberal" by the conservative and a "conservative" by the liberals. Thus the people who we should be paying the most attention to are the ones who get ignored.
- darawk 7y ago
  The issue isn't Britain's libel laws. Britain has laws regulating "hate speech". Speech that might "incite racial hatred" is illegal under British law, completely independent of its libelousness.

ceejayoz 7y ago

If that's the point of contention, maybe the article should talk a lot more about Britain's libel laws and the issues with them. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsuit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Singh#Chiropractic_lawsu... That way it'll read less like a "left is mean" and more "reforming this should be a non-political, multi-partisan concern".

shkkmo 7y ago
The article repeatedly references legal liability as a concern and nowhere does it blame a particular side of the political spectrum.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical Conservative dog whistles in the United States. This article could be construed as being right leaning however I don't think that's the intent of the author.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > The comments about fake news how colleges stifle free speech are typical Conservative dog whistles in the United States. Dog whistles? What "secret meaning" is meant to be conveyed? > This article could be construed as being right leaning I don't see how the article can be construed as "right leaning" as there is nothing conservative or liberal about supporting free speech and the value to listening to dissenting opinions. Indeed, I think the desire to categorize arguments, article, positions or especially people as "conservative" or "liberal" rather than engaging with ideas on their merits is a distinctly negative trend that accelerates our descent into ineffectual partisan bickering. It means that anyone who takes the time to consider issues carefully and form their own opinion gets shut out as a "liberal" by the conservative and a "conservative" by the liberals. Thus the people who we should be paying the most attention to are the ones who get ignored.
darawk 7y ago
The issue isn't Britain's libel laws. Britain has laws regulating "hate speech". Speech that might "incite racial hatred" is illegal under British law, completely independent of its libelousness.