4 ms·
It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges that are appointed for that purpose exactly.
by dudus 5y ago
It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges that are appointed for that purpose exactly.
- _jal 5y agoI get it. I just don't understand why anyone thinks judges should be adjudicating trust and safety issues, why they think that will lead to better outcomes, or why forcing private actors to carry speech they won't want to (which seems to be the goal of such proposals) is in any way proper. Not to mention the staffing issues you're going to have, running all these disputes through the courts...
- chrismcb 5y agoBecause, either they are a common carrier or they aren't. If they are a common carrier, they shouldn't be deciding, but they are also not liable. If they are not a common carrier, they can do what they want, but it carries done liability. Problem is, they want it both ways, decide and have no liability.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- d110af5ccf 5y ago> It puts the burden on judging what is or isn't protected free speech or hate speach in the hands of actual judges We already have this in the US though. Existing precedent is perfectly clear about what is and isn't permitted speech under the law. But a significant subset of the population isn't happy with the status quo. Hence tech companies censoring things, cancel culture, etc, etc.