4 ms·
Let's say your premise is granted. So in this hypothetical, courts are going to become moderation organizations for online content, in addition to their usual r
by fluoridation 4y ago
Let's say your premise is granted. So in this hypothetical, courts are going to become moderation organizations for online content, in addition to their usual responsibilities?
- mrguyorama 4y agoCourts are already the arbiter of expression, we have slander and libel in the states. They generally require you to prove that the parties involved knew what they are saying is a lie, which makes them a little toothless in practice. You are free to repeat anything you like as long as you do no due diligence on the info. Hell, alex jones literally just got slapped for his speech.
- int_19h 4y agoI think the question here is how that'd scale. UK already has a massive backlog of court cases that keeps growing, and that's just enforcing the existing laws. If "posting false things on the Internet" becomes a crime, we'd need orders of magnitude more courts to keep up. At some point, you have to ask if banning something that's so pervasive that most (or even a significant minority) is a good idea to begin with.
- Zpalmtree 4y agoA $1.44 billion fine is just a slap?
- yunwal 4y ago> in addition to their usual responsibilities Courts have always been responsible for determining the truth. Libel is a crime. Every criminal case has a guilty/not guilty decision that must be grounded in the truth.
- fluoridation 4y agoNot for determining the truth of all statements made. At the most just of those made about people when the people they're about make a complaint.