4 ms·

Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? Regulating what the media is and isn't allowed to say is a very slippery slope and it is open to abuse. If the go

Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? Regulating what the media is and isn't allowed to say is a very slippery slope and it is open to abuse. If the government was responsible for this task what would prevent Trump and the republicans from hijacking it? It might be frustrating but free speech is one of the cornerstones of democracy and we are much better off with it then without it. > And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation That's the first time i've ever seen anyone on HN sympathize with a billion dollar company:) But that is exactly what the article was about! Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. The First Amendment is working as inteneded. Some damage to society is tolerated to protect a much bigger and longer term benefit.

ceejayoz 1y ago
> Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? We already ban defamation, fraud, the f-bomb and boobs on publicly available television channels, etc. > Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. Long, long after the damage was done, and it'll take equally long the next time they do the same thing. As the saying goes, if there's just a fine, the fine is just the cost of doing business.
platevoltage 1y ago
We've watched media companies settle cases that they would have won on the merits in order to avoid the wrath of a vengeful authoritarian. We've already slipped down that slope.
thinkingtoilet 1y ago
Lets say you have a competing business to mine. Am I allowed to go on TV and say "DO NOT USE FridayoLeary's BUSINESS! He is a known pedophile and I have proof!" I'll put up billboards in our home town and contact any vendors and clients you have and let them know this. Is that ok with you? Things like libel and slander are not damaging to free speech. I don't know how it happened but it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for.
- Ancapistani 1y ago
  That is clearly protected speech. For it to be anything else requires a state-sponsored arbiter of truth, which is such an anti-pattern that Orwell featured it as a central theme in Nineteen Eighty-Four. As for libel/slander laws - truth is an affirmative defense. If your "proof" is factual -- even if it's insufficient to prove your claim -- then go for it. > it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for. I agree 100%.
  - thinkingtoilet 1y ago
    Obviously my point was based on what if I'm saying is a lie.

ceejayoz 1y ago

> Wouldn't that damage the right to free speech? We already ban defamation, fraud, the f-bomb and boobs on publicly available television channels, etc. > Dominion was libelled by Newsmax, so they was able to claim damages from them in a court of law. The law didn't allow them to get away with it. Long, long after the damage was done, and it'll take equally long the next time they do the same thing. As the saying goes, if there's just a fine, the fine is just the cost of doing business.

platevoltage 1y ago

We've watched media companies settle cases that they would have won on the merits in order to avoid the wrath of a vengeful authoritarian. We've already slipped down that slope.

thinkingtoilet 1y ago

Lets say you have a competing business to mine. Am I allowed to go on TV and say "DO NOT USE FridayoLeary's BUSINESS! He is a known pedophile and I have proof!" I'll put up billboards in our home town and contact any vendors and clients you have and let them know this. Is that ok with you? Things like libel and slander are not damaging to free speech. I don't know how it happened but it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for.

Ancapistani 1y ago
That is clearly protected speech. For it to be anything else requires a state-sponsored arbiter of truth, which is such an anti-pattern that Orwell featured it as a central theme in Nineteen Eighty-Four. As for libel/slander laws - truth is an affirmative defense. If your "proof" is factual -- even if it's insufficient to prove your claim -- then go for it. > it feels like American's fundamentally don't understand how our right to free speech works and what it is for. I agree 100%.
- thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  Obviously my point was based on what if I'm saying is a lie.