If you publish that person A is a space alien, you can be held legally accountable.
I think their libel suit would be dismissed for the same reason Jerry Falwell's suit against Hustler was dismissed: it's so absurd nobody could believe it.
Then again, considering what the morons on January 6 believed…
Sorry, it's just that we get a lot of comments like yours in bad faith from trolls that we thought you were one of them. I can't speak for James Burkhardt, but I'd like to offer my apologies.
How ought such a malicious act be addressed, or even diagnosed?
I think that's up for the courts to decide. The protections provided by §230 aren't absolute and in rare cases, they don't apply, such as the Roommates case. I'm sure Mike Masnick (and especially Ken "Popehat" White) could be more informative.
Also, there are many competitors to social networks if you know where to look. I'm on Discord and I love it, in fact. Also, TikTok exists. Not everything is Facebook, Twitter, Google, or owned by them…
If, however, they instead deleted all positive words about A and amplified all invented and contrived negative stories about A, they have accomplished the same evil act, but are protected from the consequences.
I would assume that deleting all positive words about Person A and amplifying defamatory stories about them would mean that the Platform X has agency, and is not acting in good faith. But I'm not a lawyer, so my word is meaningless.
Now I know a law degree from Columbia University isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I think a bit of the Ivy League élitism got to him, considering that nobody on the Supreme Court–including Trump's appointees–(except Clarence Thomas) agrees with his fruitcake opinions regarding the constitutionality of §230.
Ah, thank you for your clarification! It’s still extremely problematic, but so is copyright law in the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter), to be frank.
You also get paternity/maternity leave down there. Unfortunately, you also have (IMHO) the worst copyright laws in the world: copyright is life+100years, and then instead of it being free for everyone to use, it becomes the property of the Mexican government.
I mean, Copyright laws are effed up in general, but Mexican copyright laws are especially egregious.
Mike is definitely the most prolific blogger. He'd be the record-holder for the Guinness Book of World Records for "Blogger With Most Posts" if he bothered to submit the thousands upon thousands of posts he made rather than the hard reality of him being so busy making more of those posts that he doesn't have time to submit them as evidence.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Solution is...
I think their libel suit would be dismissed for the same reason Jerry Falwell's suit against Hustler was dismissed: it's so absurd nobody could believe it.
Then again, considering what the morons on January 6 believed…
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
Neither is "Hang Mike Pence!"
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
Until Koby can prove otherwise, he is a pedophile, spammer, and/or Islamic State jihadist.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
You seriously think every web site owner is aware of every comment/post/reply/etc. posted to their web site?
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, it's just that we get a lot of comments like yours in bad faith from trolls that we thought you were one of them. I can't speak for James Burkhardt, but I'd like to offer my apologies.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Re:
My statement applies to both, come to think of it.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re:
Oh come on, cooked ground-up cow anuses are delicious with a bun!
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: No 1st Amendment Right To Censor
So those ISIS Jihadis who have made a home in GETTR must have the strongest opinions, right?
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re: Re: Good Faith
I think that's up for the courts to decide. The protections provided by §230 aren't absolute and in rare cases, they don't apply, such as the Roommates case. I'm sure Mike Masnick (and especially Ken "Popehat" White) could be more informative.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re:
Also, there are many competitors to social networks if you know where to look. I'm on Discord and I love it, in fact. Also, TikTok exists. Not everything is Facebook, Twitter, Google, or owned by them…
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
Re:
I would assume that deleting all positive words about Person A and amplifying defamatory stories about them would mean that the Platform X has agency, and is not acting in good faith. But I'm not a lawyer, so my word is meaningless.
On the post: Yes, Actually, The 1st Amendment Does Mean That Twitter Can Kick You Off Its Platform, Wall Street Journal
WTF?
Now I know a law degree from Columbia University isn't worth the paper it's printed on. I think a bit of the Ivy League élitism got to him, considering that nobody on the Supreme Court–including Trump's appointees–(except Clarence Thomas) agrees with his fruitcake opinions regarding the constitutionality of §230.
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
Re: Re: Re: It's free South of the border
Ah, thank you for your clarification! It’s still extremely problematic, but so is copyright law in the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter), to be frank.
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
Re:
What the hell is your point? If you don't like Techdirt's niche coverage, you can go to other places, you know.
On the post: Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage
Re: It's free South of the border
You also get paternity/maternity leave down there. Unfortunately, you also have (IMHO) the worst copyright laws in the world: copyright is life+100years, and then instead of it being free for everyone to use, it becomes the property of the Mexican government.
I mean, Copyright laws are effed up in general, but Mexican copyright laws are especially egregious.
On the post: Social Network GETTR, Which Promised To Support 'Free Speech' Now Full Of Islamic State Jihadi Propaganda
Re: LMAO
The alt-right are nowhere near the "acceptance" phase, though.
Also, people grieve in different ways.
On the post: President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler
So this means…
Godwin's Law is now an actual law in France?
On the post: President Of France Sues Citizen Over Billboard Comparing Macron To Hitler
Re:
So, French reversal?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Feedback Loop
Mike is definitely the most prolific blogger. He'd be the record-holder for the Guinness Book of World Records for "Blogger With Most Posts" if he bothered to submit the thousands upon thousands of posts he made rather than the hard reality of him being so busy making more of those posts that he doesn't have time to submit them as evidence.
On the post: Senator Klobuchar Proposes An Unconstitutional Law That Would Kill Legions Of People If Trump Were Still President
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Government censorship
That is literally an Orwellian proposition.
Next >>