3 ms·

Harm principle. The government doesn't ban firearms, automobiles, knives, etc. because they have potential to cause harm, so why would the government break fre

Harm principle. The government doesn't ban firearms, automobiles, knives, etc. because they have potential to cause harm, so why would the government break freedoms to censor information on the basis that it has potential to cause harm? Defamation (libel/slander) is not a crime and is not censurable as such, but you can be sued for the damages (harm) that it causes. You are free within your first amendment rights to leave that defaming information up after it is proven to cause harm in civil court, but then you are still liable for the damage it continues to cause.

danShumway 7y ago
> You are free within your first amendment rights to leave that defaming information up after it is proven to cause harm in civil court, but then you are still liable for the damage it continues to cause. IANAL, but this is a weird interpretation to me. I'm not sure how to describe a court fining you for publishing information other than, "compelling you to remove that information." I dunno, this really doesn't line up with my understanding of libel laws. Of course, bear in mind that the Right to Be Forgotten has very, very little to do with libel. If we were just talking about libel, we'd use existing libel laws. The fact that Right to Be Forgotten exists in addition to libel laws should be enough to show that it is targeting different information. I dislike that people bring up libel when debating Right to Be Forgotten, because I view libel laws as largely irrelevant to the debate. It's just trope #3 again[0]. [0]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
- bduerst 7y ago
  I didn't bring it up - I was explaining how it's different and not a form of government censorship.

danShumway 7y ago

> You are free within your first amendment rights to leave that defaming information up after it is proven to cause harm in civil court, but then you are still liable for the damage it continues to cause. IANAL, but this is a weird interpretation to me. I'm not sure how to describe a court fining you for publishing information other than, "compelling you to remove that information." I dunno, this really doesn't line up with my understanding of libel laws. Of course, bear in mind that the Right to Be Forgotten has very, very little to do with libel. If we were just talking about libel, we'd use existing libel laws. The fact that Right to Be Forgotten exists in addition to libel laws should be enough to show that it is targeting different information. I dislike that people bring up libel when debating Right to Be Forgotten, because I view libel laws as largely irrelevant to the debate. It's just trope #3 again[0]. [0]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

bduerst 7y ago
I didn't bring it up - I was explaining how it's different and not a form of government censorship.