3 ms·

The judge should have ordered Meta to place a banner on FB so that everyone can see it and join if they're a victim.

shimman 7mo ago
Wow this is a really good idea. I wonder if the various state trials happening as well should use this for remediation too. It's not a hard thing to implement on their end and should be mandated by a judge as you said. Filing this away for later use.
- miki123211 7mo ago
  Europe (Poland) loves this kind of stuff. It often comes up in (anti) free-speech trials, where the government compels the perpetrator to issue a public apology to the victim. Forcing them to buy an ad in a newspaper for example is not unheard of. As far as I understand, Americans consider this to be "compelled speech" and hence prohibited, but I might be wrong on this.
  - dcrazy 7mo ago
    The same thing happens here. Courts are allowed to compel speech as a method of remedy, but my recollection is that this is sometimes successfully challenged. An interesting variant I’ve seen on anti-smoking banners at convenience stores is “A federal court has ordered a Philip Morris USA to say: …”
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- push0ret 6mo ago
  In Austria this is a called "Urteilsveröffentlichung" ("Judgement Publication"; § 25 UWG). It has commonly been used in cases against ISPs. Here is such an example (VKI vs A1 Telekom): https://www.lteforum.at/attachments/a1-urteil-jpg.34162/ https://www.lteforum.at/attachments/a1-urteil-jpg.34162/
smsm42 7mo ago
Not likely to survive 1st Amendment challenge - it is possible to compel somebody to certain speech as a result of losing a case, but doing this as a prerequisite when the case has just started is not likely to fly. Otherwise I could force Facebook (or any other platform) to publish anything just by suing them - and anybody could sue anybody else on virtually any grounds.
- gowld 7mo ago
  https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mis... "We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations."

Wow this is a really good idea. I wonder if the various state trials happening as well should use this for remediation too. It's not a hard thing to implement on their end and should be mandated by a judge as you said. Filing this away for later use.

miki123211 7mo ago
Europe (Poland) loves this kind of stuff. It often comes up in (anti) free-speech trials, where the government compels the perpetrator to issue a public apology to the victim. Forcing them to buy an ad in a newspaper for example is not unheard of. As far as I understand, Americans consider this to be "compelled speech" and hence prohibited, but I might be wrong on this.
- dcrazy 7mo ago
  The same thing happens here. Courts are allowed to compel speech as a method of remedy, but my recollection is that this is sometimes successfully challenged. An interesting variant I’ve seen on anti-smoking banners at convenience stores is “A federal court has ordered a Philip Morris USA to say: …”
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
push0ret 6mo ago
In Austria this is a called "Urteilsveröffentlichung" ("Judgement Publication"; § 25 UWG). It has commonly been used in cases against ISPs. Here is such an example (VKI vs A1 Telekom): https://www.lteforum.at/attachments/a1-urteil-jpg.34162/ https://www.lteforum.at/attachments/a1-urteil-jpg.34162/

smsm42 7mo ago

Not likely to survive 1st Amendment challenge - it is possible to compel somebody to certain speech as a result of losing a case, but doing this as a prerequisite when the case has just started is not likely to fly. Otherwise I could force Facebook (or any other platform) to publish anything just by suing them - and anybody could sue anybody else on virtually any grounds.

gowld 7mo ago
https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/ https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mis... "We will allow more speech by lifting restrictions on some topics that are part of mainstream discourse and focusing our enforcement on illegal and high-severity violations."