3 ms·

One of the consequences might be that if you say a lie about someone else, they will sue you for libel. And in an ideal world, the lie would be discovered and y

One of the consequences might be that if you say a lie about someone else, they will sue you for libel. And in an ideal world, the lie would be discovered and you'd lose that suit. So asking a user on facebook to remove a lie, then asking facebook to remove that lie, sounds like a fair thing to do in a "real" democracy. > Governments should not have the power to silence their critics I agree completely, but we are talking about the case when they are trying to silence a lie. That's different than critics.

semiotagonal 7y ago
In the US it is almost impossible for a public figure, especially a political figure, to win a libel lawsuit. In theory, a deliberate, malicious false statement against a public figure would count as libel; but in practice basically everything is allowed. This prevents politicians from intimidating their critics with lawsuits. EDITED TO ADD: In fact in the US there is pretty much a constant stream of false statements about every politician, and I can't recall any politician ever winning a libel case. Devin Nunes is trying currently, and basically making a fool of himself.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
Wouldn't placing a notice on content deemed fake be more like what we do with slander/libel. Court reports create a record of the lie which aids the public in deciding who to deal with and creates an additional motivation not to lie. It also allows a person to disagree with the judgement. "This content has been determined to be fake: [evidence or link to evidence]" That would be my preference. So
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  As an example I assume you're familiar with the treatment family of Sandy Hook victims have gotten? Where they have to deal with constant harassment and threats from people that believe it is a hoax and those that encourage them? If you were to slap a content disclaimer saying 'this content is fake', they would just use that as fuel and proof that the government doesn't want you to know the truth. The lie directly harms people by simply existing even if you add a disclaimer.

semiotagonal 7y ago

In the US it is almost impossible for a public figure, especially a political figure, to win a libel lawsuit. In theory, a deliberate, malicious false statement against a public figure would count as libel; but in practice basically everything is allowed. This prevents politicians from intimidating their critics with lawsuits. EDITED TO ADD: In fact in the US there is pretty much a constant stream of false statements about every politician, and I can't recall any politician ever winning a libel case. Devin Nunes is trying currently, and basically making a fool of himself.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

Wouldn't placing a notice on content deemed fake be more like what we do with slander/libel. Court reports create a record of the lie which aids the public in deciding who to deal with and creates an additional motivation not to lie. It also allows a person to disagree with the judgement. "This content has been determined to be fake: [evidence or link to evidence]" That would be my preference. So

fzeroracer 7y ago
As an example I assume you're familiar with the treatment family of Sandy Hook victims have gotten? Where they have to deal with constant harassment and threats from people that believe it is a hoax and those that encourage them? If you were to slap a content disclaimer saying 'this content is fake', they would just use that as fuel and proof that the government doesn't want you to know the truth. The lie directly harms people by simply existing even if you add a disclaimer.