3 ms·
Consider that broadcasting the crimes someone was arrested for has a similar negative impact, and is seldom remedied by acquittal. Similarly, consider how this
by Karunamon 5y ago
Consider that broadcasting the crimes someone was arrested for has a similar negative impact, and is seldom remedied by acquittal. Similarly, consider how this blasé attitude works when incorrect accusations are getting thrown around.
If you weaponize social networks against someone, you don't get to stand back, wash your hands of the matter and shrug with "freedom of association" as if it's some force of nature where you had nothing to do with what happens next. You lit the fuse or helped burn it.
- sneak 5y agoYou can't "weaponize" social networks, as they are comprised of living, thinking human beings each with their own agency and decisionmaking ability. They're not passive objects.
- Karunamon 5y agoThe fact that laws on things like libel and slander and blackmail exist means that the legal system has recognized that living, thinking human beings with agency still react in certain harmful ways when told certain things. "Agency" is not an escape hatch from the responsibility of understanding the reasonably predictable consequences of your actions.
- sneak 5y agoLibel and slander are, at least in most of the USA, largely a civil matter, and aren't actually illegal, FWIW. The twenty-odd states that do have laws on the books about it don't frequently enforce, and it's usually just a misdemeanor. The civil liability is what keeps most large public lies in check. We aren't talking about lies, though, we are talking about negative opinions, which aren't lies and thus aren't slander or libel. Spreading your own negative opinions about someone or someone's actions is not illegal.