4 ms·

People seem to forget (for some strange reason) that there are actually laws against things that you can say. For example, defamation laws are in place to punis

People seem to forget (for some strange reason) that there are actually laws against things that you can say. For example, defamation laws are in place to punish the distribution of much of what is today qualified as "fake news". If you spread false news on purpose, or if you threat someone of violence, if you make racist comments (in countries like Brazil), these are situations where you can suffer consequences for things you say or write. In other words, free speech is not an absolute right as some want us to believe. A communications platform cannot be considered legal if it enables crimes to be committed with no consequences.

saagarjha 6y ago
One complicating factor is that the United States guarantees rights that many countries do not, which can cause confusion. And another that often gets thrown is the "is social media a public square or private property" question. FWIW, simply enabling a crime to occur is not necessarily illegal.
- coliveira 6y ago
  It is not ilegal if the enabler has no way to stop the crime. This is different if you can show that someone is committing a crime and the enabler doesn't want to stop it.
- peteretep 6y ago
  > One complicating factor is that the United States guarantees rights that many countries do not And further it fills a large part of American identity and backstory, to the degree that they don’t seem to realise most rich countries with free citizens get on just fine without it
  - smabie 6y ago
    Just like China, gotcha.
    - peteretep 6y ago
      ...?
willyt 6y ago
In most common law jurisdictions there are two branches of law, very approximately the differences are: Criminal law, crimes like murder, rape, theft in breach of rules enforced by the state against all citizens, judgements result in punishments up to death, prison etc; Civil law, unlawful acts like breach of contract, libel, negligence etc, rules are enforced by the courts at the request of one citizen against another, judgements result in nothing worse than financial recompense. Typically jurisdictions treat defamation and libel as a civil matter not a criminal matter. In civil law, in the UK at least, you need to prove damages against a 'legal person' i.e. a person or a company to be able to win a court judgement against the defendant. Hence most fake news cannot be fought in the courts as it is too hard to prove that it has directly caused damages to any one person. This is why you often see tabloid news stories about vaguely defined groups and hardly ever about a specific person or manufacturer. Stories about a specific person are much more expensive to produce because you have to be sure you have solid enough evidence to win a libel case, whereas if you make stuff up about a poorly defined group, e.g. 'migrants' there is no come back so it's a much cheaper way to wind up your readers and get more emotional engagement.

saagarjha 6y ago

One complicating factor is that the United States guarantees rights that many countries do not, which can cause confusion. And another that often gets thrown is the "is social media a public square or private property" question. FWIW, simply enabling a crime to occur is not necessarily illegal.

coliveira 6y ago
It is not ilegal if the enabler has no way to stop the crime. This is different if you can show that someone is committing a crime and the enabler doesn't want to stop it.
peteretep 6y ago
> One complicating factor is that the United States guarantees rights that many countries do not And further it fills a large part of American identity and backstory, to the degree that they don’t seem to realise most rich countries with free citizens get on just fine without it
- smabie 6y ago
  Just like China, gotcha.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    ...?

willyt 6y ago

In most common law jurisdictions there are two branches of law, very approximately the differences are: Criminal law, crimes like murder, rape, theft in breach of rules enforced by the state against all citizens, judgements result in punishments up to death, prison etc; Civil law, unlawful acts like breach of contract, libel, negligence etc, rules are enforced by the courts at the request of one citizen against another, judgements result in nothing worse than financial recompense. Typically jurisdictions treat defamation and libel as a civil matter not a criminal matter. In civil law, in the UK at least, you need to prove damages against a 'legal person' i.e. a person or a company to be able to win a court judgement against the defendant. Hence most fake news cannot be fought in the courts as it is too hard to prove that it has directly caused damages to any one person. This is why you often see tabloid news stories about vaguely defined groups and hardly ever about a specific person or manufacturer. Stories about a specific person are much more expensive to produce because you have to be sure you have solid enough evidence to win a libel case, whereas if you make stuff up about a poorly defined group, e.g. 'migrants' there is no come back so it's a much cheaper way to wind up your readers and get more emotional engagement.