Australia goes full crackhead on Free Speech
-
Court judgment on social media posts is a blow to free speech
-
@raphjd said in Australia goes full crackhead on Free Speech:
Court judgment on social media posts is a blow to free speech
Maybe you didn't read or understand the article above, but this is EXACTLY the double-edged-sword I've been warning you about with your tirades against US Section 230!
This article you quote tells how the Australian Court has found that the Sydney Morning Herald (a newspaper with a Facebook page) CAN be held liable for the postings OTHER PEOPLE make IN REFERENCE TO their stories...
So, the Herald prints an article about a youth in detention (jail) - a fact not in question. Someone ELSE posts a claim (in the comments section... as a "reply" to the story) that this kid is a rapist. The Herald has no control over the replies and cannot self-edit them (that's a Facebook duty), but since it's the Herald's Facebook feed, he (the youth) is suing the Herald for libel. And the Court has said "OK - that's reasonable".
Of course, if the Herald DID have the ability to remove such posts, it would be labeled anti-free-speech and part of a "conspiracy" to protect the young man...
Lunacy... They're damned if they do, and now they're equally damned if they don't... but to PROTECT the Herald from such nonsense, you need something... I don't know, maybe something like the US Section 203!
Just to note: as I predicted - the end result is that Australian outlets are just turning off user comments...
YEAH! That's the BEST way to have free speech! TURN OFF the outlets for public comment!
Next, the plaintiffs will go after Facebook itself! (under the same "logic" used to permit the claim against the paper: "The court found that several news outlets, including the Herald, should be considered the publishers of allegedly defamatory comments added by third parties to Facebook posts..." So, why shouldn't Facebook be considered the publisher, too?
But this is a common thread amongst the new alt-right:
- all individuals are good
- all corporations are bad
- any chance "the people" have to "stick it" to the corporations is good!
If this legal theory prevails, it will change the Internet as we know it... Free platforms like Twitter & Facebook will disappear for lack of funding for the legal protections needed. Pay platforms like the Herald and the NY Times will regain their "stature" as "purveyors of news", but all public comments on them will be "moderated" by their publishers...
This'll be GREAT for alt-right-ers... because they OWN all the biggest media outlets!... Oh, wait... no... LIBERALS own most of the traditional media... my bad...
-
Section 230 isn't needed in the US.
Prior to Section 230, if they act as a publisher, they are liable for what is posted, but if they act as a platform they are not. We discussed the 2 lawsuits that made this clear.
Section 230 made special rights for "big tech" so they could act as both. It allows them to ban speech they don't like, as a publisher but protects them from lawsuits as a platform.
NO, I am not talking about the few limited cases of banned content by the government and SCotUS.
Your type of conservatism is "but muh corporations are people, so they have muh human rights".
Umm, liberals own virtually all of "big tech", or have you forgotten?