2 ms·
> What else is obscene? Quite a lot of things may or may not fall under that definition. Thats how the law works. > And why would I have to accept an US jury
by stale2002 3y ago
> What else is obscene?
Quite a lot of things may or may not fall under that definition. Thats how the law works.
> And why would I have to accept an US jury's opinion?
Well, because they and judges are the ones empowered by the government monopoly on violence to judge the law and then have it be enforced, thats why.
Ignore the law at your own peril. But anyway, even if you did ignore the law, this doesn't have anything to do with you.
This is about companies immunity from prosecution. So, even if you disagree with the law, those companies are still immune under section 230, for good faith efforts to remove obscene content.
> Also you didn't define 'otherwise objectionable'.
It would be defined as whatever judges and juries define it as. I don't define it. Instead it is defined by those people.
> For example what I think
If you are not a judge or currently on a jury, then what you think is irrelevant.
The law is not computer code. Instead, it is interpreted by humans. And that is the case for basically all of law.
- nottorp 3y ago> Well, because they and judges are the ones empowered by the government monopoly on violence to judge the law and then have it be enforced, thats why. ... by the US government on US territory, i think. They have no business defining "otherwise objectionable" elsewhere.
- stale2002 3y ago> They have no business defining "otherwise objectionable" elsewhere. The principles that I have describe also apply to other countries as well. So yes it is absolutely the case that in other countries there are judges and juries that apply the law via the process of judges and juries. But once again, no matter what some other country thinks, on this specific topic, it is about a company getting immunity from USA enforcement. So all other countries do not matter on this topic, because this is about US law.