5 ms·
If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it, complied, then restored it, was asked to remove it again, complied, restored it a
by 542458 4y ago
If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it, complied, then restored it, was asked to remove it again, complied, restored it again, then finally started refusing to remove it, I’d say suing them is reasonable (which is what happened here as far as I can tell - the exact sequence of events is a bit hard to reconstruct).
- perihelions 4y ago- "If the library was informed of the defamatory content, was asked to remove it," Thankfully 100% unconstitutional in the US.
- sdfghswe 4y agoDoesn't matter if it's unconstitutional in the US. Different countries have different laws. If you can't abide by the laws of other countries, don't operate there.
- voxic11 4y agoNo in the US libraries and bookstores are considered "distributors" so they have no obligation to actively review all of their content like "publishers" have, but when given notice they are still obligated to remove any content which violates the law, including defamatory content.
- kgwgk 4y agoWhat part is “unconstitutional”? Informing? Asking? Removing?
- whitemary 4y agoYou aren't going to like this, but it turns out the US doesn't reliably enforce anything in its constitution, and even contradicts it on a constant basis. Effectively, the US is governed by an aggregate of very wealthy corporations who get what they want by bartering with politicians.
- User23 4y agoYou're along the right lines, but it's gnarlier than that. National politicians are more like WWE wrestlers or reality show contestants. They have some freedom of action, but not much, and they must stay within the lines of the script. Tellingly, none of them actually legislate anymore, with the exception of the occasional bit of grandstanding that isn't intended to ever get past being a bill. All the bills that do become laws are written by private lawyers working for known or unknown principals, who then hand them off to lobbyists, who then arrange for a politician to sign off on it. We receive some clues as to who the real shot callers are, because certain agenda items reliably receive bipartisan support. So for example we can conclude that whoever really runs the USA is fully in favor of involvement in the Ukraine war. There's enough publicly available information to build a relatively complete profile of the rulers, but not, so far as I know, enough information to reliably identify any specific persons. Needless to say, efforts to publicly develop and share that profile are rigorously suppressed.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- sidewndr46 4y agoApparently, you've never read the DMCA or any national defense laws. 100% legal and happens daily.