"In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens."
As I previously explained, prior restraint does not apply here because the false statement isn't challenged until after it has already published. I have wasted time out of my life repeatedly explaining this to you. Many others have done the same thing on the interwebz. It would be great if we had an actual information economy that rewarded people for making sure that statements are true.
The statement here has already published before it is challenged. Prior restraint involves preventing a statement from ever being published. If you want to make critiques, it behooves you to actually have some rudimentary knowledge about the subject at hand.
Anyone who is willing to claim that it is false? There could be some nominal dollar amount paid by the challenger to discourage frivolous claims. If the person making the statement does not request review within some time limit, then the statement is taken down and the challenger gets their money back. If the person requests review, then they put up the same nominal amount. Half of the fees go to a neutral third party that reviews the statement. The other half goes to the winner or more than half if you want to incentivize true statements/challenges. There could be a system of strikes that escalate a suspension periods. There could also be a system of appeals. There are plenty of creative people that could come up with some kind of solution like this.
This isn't a complete ban on speech. This is a time, place, and manner restriction. People are still free to make false statements outside the social network. This would just restrict the manner in which they get to make their false statements. The person would be denied the amplification that the social network provides. There is no well established rule against this.
We do notice and take down for copyright violations. There is no reason that we cannot implement a similar regime for false information. Re the First Amendment, you can't test the boundaries of the Constitution without a test case. You can't get a test case without passing a law. Throwing up our hands before trying anything won't get us anywhere. The nut jobs are willing to pack the courts and pass blatantly unconstitutional laws. Meanwhile, the normies are just sitting on their hands.
Yes, the studies don't seem to be testing the correct scenarios. The other scenario is where the platform allows an alt-right group to target people with ads based on some indicator of gullibility, the people engage with that content, which causes the content to be elevated for others in organic suggestions/search results. It only takes a few thousand people in a swing state to change the outcome of a statewide election. The radicalization doesn't need to be widespread to have a serious effect.
Maybe it's more like FB doesn't have a presence in Myanmar or Gambia, so there is no entity to sue there. It seems like the law enforcement exception should apply here though.
Re: Re: Re:
"In First Amendment law, prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens."
As I previously explained, prior restraint does not apply here because the false statement isn't challenged until after it has already published. I have wasted time out of my life repeatedly explaining this to you. Many others have done the same thing on the interwebz. It would be great if we had an actual information economy that rewarded people for making sure that statements are true.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint#
Re:
Your comment is a great example of why we need a notice and take down system for false information.
Re: Re: Re: Re: This isn't rocket science
The statement here has already published before it is challenged. Prior restraint involves preventing a statement from ever being published. If you want to make critiques, it behooves you to actually have some rudimentary knowledge about the subject at hand.
Re: Re: This isn't rocket science
Anyone who is willing to claim that it is false? There could be some nominal dollar amount paid by the challenger to discourage frivolous claims. If the person making the statement does not request review within some time limit, then the statement is taken down and the challenger gets their money back. If the person requests review, then they put up the same nominal amount. Half of the fees go to a neutral third party that reviews the statement. The other half goes to the winner or more than half if you want to incentivize true statements/challenges. There could be a system of strikes that escalate a suspension periods. There could also be a system of appeals. There are plenty of creative people that could come up with some kind of solution like this.
Re: Re: This isn't rocket science
This isn't a complete ban on speech. This is a time, place, and manner restriction. People are still free to make false statements outside the social network. This would just restrict the manner in which they get to make their false statements. The person would be denied the amplification that the social network provides. There is no well established rule against this.
This isn't rocket science
We do notice and take down for copyright violations. There is no reason that we cannot implement a similar regime for false information. Re the First Amendment, you can't test the boundaries of the Constitution without a test case. You can't get a test case without passing a law. Throwing up our hands before trying anything won't get us anywhere. The nut jobs are willing to pack the courts and pass blatantly unconstitutional laws. Meanwhile, the normies are just sitting on their hands.
Re: Re: Re: Disagree with Tim G
It looks like Pappas may have filed for their US TM after Papa's was already using the name: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:uq50ih.2.22
Re: Huh? What?
2G has weak encryption and no authentication. 3G-5G all fall back on 2G when communication fails on 3G-5G. One can take advantage of the problems with 2G by disabling communication at 3G-5G. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/your-phone-vulnerable-because-2g-it-doesnt-have-be
Re: People Get What They Seek
Yes, the studies don't seem to be testing the correct scenarios. The other scenario is where the platform allows an alt-right group to target people with ads based on some indicator of gullibility, the people engage with that content, which causes the content to be elevated for others in organic suggestions/search results. It only takes a few thousand people in a swing state to change the outcome of a statewide election. The radicalization doesn't need to be widespread to have a serious effect.
Re: Re: SCA?
Maybe it's more like FB doesn't have a presence in Myanmar or Gambia, so there is no entity to sue there. It seems like the law enforcement exception should apply here though.
SCA?
Why is the SCA being applied to a crime that happened in Myanmar and a law enforcement agency in Gambia?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dallas Wonder.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt