3 ms·

> "62. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act effectively creates a defamation crime in the United Kingdom." > "63. Defamation crimes such as Section 179 of the

> "62. Section 179 of the Online Safety Act effectively creates a defamation crime in the United Kingdom." > "63. Defamation crimes such as Section 179 of the OSA, including the historical crime of seditious libel, were permanently abolished in the United States when the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791." This just deepens my confusion: defamation crimes most definitely do exist in the US—have not been abolished by courts. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-first-amendment-challenge-to-criminal-defamation-law https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/u-s-supreme-court-declin... ("U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear First Amendment Challenge to Criminal Defamation Law" (2023)) > "The Supreme Court imposed significant restrictions on criminal defamation laws in the 1960s, and several justices signaled that criminal defamation should be abolished entirely... Despite this, generally applicable criminal defamation laws remain on the books in 14 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands."

EarlKing 1y ago
> This just deepens my confusion: defamation crimes most definitely do exist in the US—have not been abolished by courts. Right now there are laws in Utah, Texas, and Mississippi that require you to identify yourself by government-issued ID just to post on social media. These laws are blatantly unconstitutional and currently undergoing legal challenges in court. That unconstitutional laws exist at any particular time or place has no bearing on whether or not they are unconstitutional, nor does the Supreme Court's denial to hear a case as they only take so many cases every year, and that particular one may not have been suitable for review for any number of reasons. Since you just posted the ACLU's press release rather than actual court documents I can't really say one way or another. In any event, under the SPEECH Act, foreign defamation judgements are generally unenforceable unless they offer at least as much protection as afforded to citizens of the United States under our own laws. That law was passed in direct response to libel tourism. Censors looking to launder their censorship through the UK are effectively thwarted by the SPEECH Act, hence why it was raised in their filing.

EarlKing 1y ago

> This just deepens my confusion: defamation crimes most definitely do exist in the US—have not been abolished by courts. Right now there are laws in Utah, Texas, and Mississippi that require you to identify yourself by government-issued ID just to post on social media. These laws are blatantly unconstitutional and currently undergoing legal challenges in court. That unconstitutional laws exist at any particular time or place has no bearing on whether or not they are unconstitutional, nor does the Supreme Court's denial to hear a case as they only take so many cases every year, and that particular one may not have been suitable for review for any number of reasons. Since you just posted the ACLU's press release rather than actual court documents I can't really say one way or another. In any event, under the SPEECH Act, foreign defamation judgements are generally unenforceable unless they offer at least as much protection as afforded to citizens of the United States under our own laws. That law was passed in direct response to libel tourism. Censors looking to launder their censorship through the UK are effectively thwarted by the SPEECH Act, hence why it was raised in their filing.