3 ms·
The point of libel laws is that 50 years ago, the NYT could make libelous accusations against someone and they would have had no platform to defend themselves.
by erikwiffin 17y ago
The point of libel laws is that 50 years ago, the NYT could make libelous accusations against someone and they would have had no platform to defend themselves. Thus they were given a legal platform.
Now, if someone says mean things about you in a forum, you can defend yourself on that very same forum. You don't need a legal platform.
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoIt shouldn't be my responsibility to defend myself in each and every forum in which I might be attacked, should it? Because if that were the case, whoever had the most posters and websites could say whatever they wanted about the people who didn't have those resources.
- Ardit20 17y agoI do not think the case in question is about a forum. Even if it was no one should be free to proliferate malicious and false information which may injure the reputation of an individual or company. Reputation is a valuable thing to an individual, perhaps one of the most valuable, and society would not be civilised nor able to function well if we were free to injure other individual's reputation, whether that is online, in a cafee, or on paper. As for your point of platform, that may be true, NYT still is very powerful and can crush an individual, but then so is hufington post, and perhaps even a highly regarded individual who makes a post in a forum. You may then come to the forum and state that the information is false, yet I doubt the previous individual would come back saying, oh yes it is, I beg your pardon. So the point of libel law is so that you may go to court and get an impartial individual who decides whether it was defamatory or otherwise.