5 ms·

And conversely the US is one of the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights or can be interpreted as defa

And conversely the US is one of the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights or can be interpreted as defamation/slander. The premise that US has anything resembling freedom of speech is completely untrue.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago
Wait, doesn't the US generally have really high standards for what can meet defamation/slander? Esp. compared with other western countries?
ncallaway 4y ago
> the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights That's absolutely true. > or can be interpreted as defamation/slander That's absolutely false. The United States tends to be much harder to press a defamation/slander case than many other territories. Perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom? They have much looser libel laws than the United States.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Libel/slander are famously hard to prove in the US. Sure you're not thinking of the UK? Are peer nations substantially more liberal on copyright infringement than the US? I haven't really heard of that. Really, it seemed like other countries like Japan and Germany were stricter.
- unknownaccount 4y ago
  Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? (Peoples who’s names he never even mentioned, at that..) If calling public figures actors is all it takes for them to successfully sue for millions, the bar seems incredibly low.
  - djur 4y ago
    Jones didn't bother to show up to court to defend himself, so the plaintiffs won by default.
  - ncallaway 4y ago
    > Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? No. First, the Sandy Hook parents were not public figures. Second, Jones and Infowars did significantly more than just make claims about people being crisis actors (though, that in itself absolutely can be defamatory in that it was a false statement of fact). There were also claims that some parent's fabricated their daughter's identify and then faked her death in order to steal money from hard-working Americans. Third, this was not a matter of Jones simply making an assertion once. He repeated these claims for years, which led to a significant and ongoing harassment of the family. The original complaint is here, though I'll note that it's from 2018 and much more evidence was discovered since the complaint was filed: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=15913486 https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu.... Fourth, Jones refused to participate in the lawsuit itself, deliberately and repeatedly not complying with repeated discovery orders. This led to a default judgement against him. Fifth, an entire trial was held on how much damage Jones' defamatory statements and unfair trade practices caused. A jury of his peers determined that Jones' defamatory actions caused $965 Million dollars in damages. So, I think your characterization of it as "an entertainer simply repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show" is an absolutely incomplete summary of what happened, and why he was found to be liable for his actions. Which jurisdiction(s) do you think would have afforded more protections to Jones' defamatory conduct? The entire docket can be found here: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=UWYCV186046438S https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail....
origin_path 4y ago
The USA has the concept of both fair use and public domain, which is lacking in many other countries copyright laws. The idea that the USA is uniquely IP owner friendly is commonplace in the tech community but wrong.

PuppyTailWags 4y ago

Wait, doesn't the US generally have really high standards for what can meet defamation/slander? Esp. compared with other western countries?

ncallaway 4y ago

> the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights That's absolutely true. > or can be interpreted as defamation/slander That's absolutely false. The United States tends to be much harder to press a defamation/slander case than many other territories. Perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom? They have much looser libel laws than the United States.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

TulliusCicero 4y ago

Libel/slander are famously hard to prove in the US. Sure you're not thinking of the UK? Are peer nations substantially more liberal on copyright infringement than the US? I haven't really heard of that. Really, it seemed like other countries like Japan and Germany were stricter.

unknownaccount 4y ago
Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? (Peoples who’s names he never even mentioned, at that..) If calling public figures actors is all it takes for them to successfully sue for millions, the bar seems incredibly low.
- djur 4y ago
  Jones didn't bother to show up to court to defend himself, so the plaintiffs won by default.
- ncallaway 4y ago
  > Didn’t an entertainer in the US recently get sued for millions of dollars over Defamation simply for repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show-that some public figures were supposedly “crisis actors”? No. First, the Sandy Hook parents were not public figures. Second, Jones and Infowars did significantly more than just make claims about people being crisis actors (though, that in itself absolutely can be defamatory in that it was a false statement of fact). There were also claims that some parent's fabricated their daughter's identify and then faked her death in order to steal money from hard-working Americans. Third, this was not a matter of Jones simply making an assertion once. He repeated these claims for years, which led to a significant and ongoing harassment of the family. The original complaint is here, though I'll note that it's from 2018 and much more evidence was discovered since the complaint was filed: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInquiry.aspx?DocumentNo=15913486 https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DocumentInquiry/DocumentInqu.... Fourth, Jones refused to participate in the lawsuit itself, deliberately and repeatedly not complying with repeated discovery orders. This led to a default judgement against him. Fifth, an entire trial was held on how much damage Jones' defamatory statements and unfair trade practices caused. A jury of his peers determined that Jones' defamatory actions caused $965 Million dollars in damages. So, I think your characterization of it as "an entertainer simply repeating a popular internet conspiracy theory on his show" is an absolutely incomplete summary of what happened, and why he was found to be liable for his actions. Which jurisdiction(s) do you think would have afforded more protections to Jones' defamatory conduct? The entire docket can be found here: https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail.aspx?DocketNo=UWYCV186046438S https://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/CaseDetail/PublicCaseDetail....

origin_path 4y ago

The USA has the concept of both fair use and public domain, which is lacking in many other countries copyright laws. The idea that the USA is uniquely IP owner friendly is commonplace in the tech community but wrong.