4 ms·

If a person stands on a street corner handing out pamphlets falsely claiming that some individual, let's say a public figure, is a child molester, I understand

If a person stands on a street corner handing out pamphlets falsely claiming that some individual, let's say a public figure, is a child molester, I understand the libel and liability. If, instead, that person handed out pamphlets saying that the Pfizer vaccine was experimental "gene therapy" that will result in "infertility," what happens then? I ask because the second seems closer to the liability you allege than cases of libel. In practical terms, the effect of this bill would be the government flagging "misinformation," the social media companies rushing to take it down (and likely being proactive to take down "misinformation"), and then the person or group allegedly wronged by the take-down having to fight it all out in court. The first amendment is fundamentally about protecting political speech. Curbing speech because of "public health emergencies" is — I will assert — a sly attempt at getting around that. What we're talking about is political speech by another name. Isn't this the "chilling effect" we hear so much about?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> If, instead, that person handed out pamphlets saying that the Pfizer vaccine was experimental "gene therapy" that will result in "infertility," what happens then? See, e.g., https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputation/business-disparagement/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputat... falsity + malice + harm is a basis for liability in a number of different specific forms, and there very little reason to suspect that a new specific variation of that template would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.
- mariodiana 5y ago
  Thank you. But I guess my real point is that Section 230 gives social media companies a status closer to the print shop, in my example, than it does to the nut standing out on the corner. But the new law will now pick and choose, and the government will be doing the picking and choosing. That's why I put "misinformation" in scare quotes. The government is setting itself up as the arbiter. This won't stop with the current pandemic. You're familiar with the recent "X is infrastructure" fad? "Public health emergency" is setting itself up as the next trick. That's the real issue.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If, instead, that person handed out pamphlets saying that the Pfizer vaccine was experimental "gene therapy" that will result in "infertility," what happens then? See, e.g., https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputation/business-disparagement/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/personal-injury/harm-to-reputat... falsity + malice + harm is a basis for liability in a number of different specific forms, and there very little reason to suspect that a new specific variation of that template would not withstand Constitutional scrutiny.

mariodiana 5y ago
Thank you. But I guess my real point is that Section 230 gives social media companies a status closer to the print shop, in my example, than it does to the nut standing out on the corner. But the new law will now pick and choose, and the government will be doing the picking and choosing. That's why I put "misinformation" in scare quotes. The government is setting itself up as the arbiter. This won't stop with the current pandemic. You're familiar with the recent "X is infrastructure" fad? "Public health emergency" is setting itself up as the next trick. That's the real issue.