from the glad-we-are-not-hosted-down-under dept.
CNN shut down its Facebook page in Australia after court liability ruling:
CNN shut down its Facebook page in Australia on Wednesday, after an Australian court ruled that media outlets are liable for defamatory user-generated comments.
[...] The deteriorating effects of the court's ruling on online speech in Australia serve as a warning of what's to come if U.S. lawmakers succeed in their efforts to weakening protections against such legal decisions in the United States.
[...] The court's ruling previews the grim future in store if U.S. politicians get their way and dismantle Section 230, the keystone U.S. law that shields websites from liability over user-generated content. Without it, social media platforms and any other website with user-generated content—especially those without Facebook's deep pockets—would likely die. Both Republicans and Democrats, President Joe Biden included, would like it dismantled.
Should the person doing the defaming be liable, or the owner of the page the defamation is posted on be liable?
(Score: 3, Troll) by MostCynical on Friday October 01 2021, @05:53AM (17 children)
...and nothing of value was lost.
Did anyone actually notice?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 01 2021, @05:59AM (6 children)
I'm sure that 'Strayans are rejoicing. Facebook put a huge crimp in the government's ability to spy on people when they shut down.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @06:08AM (5 children)
Hi from Australia.
CNN who? They were the ones who covered the Bush Snr invasion of Iraq 30 years ago, I believe.
CNN have ZERO presence in Australia, so them 'leaving' is farcical.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Runaway1956 on Friday October 01 2021, @06:16AM
Yeah, but FACEBOOK!! They'll be folding soon, because they can't police everyone all the time.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @06:24AM (2 children)
You're right. They were the shizzle in the 90s until Turner sold out. Interesting to hear about their irrelevance in Oz. Does RT have greater reach there?
Also interesting to hear that courts are making decisions. They let judges travel more than 5 km from home?
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday October 01 2021, @08:56AM
closest Australians get to RT is Euronews [wikipedia.org] or Al Jazeera [wikipedia.org] on FetchTV [wikipedia.org]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @03:46PM
Rupert Murdoch controls most of the media in AU. So, AU news sources are basically, the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment as headed up by Joseph Goebbels. With Russia's move hard right, I guess you could say AU has something like RT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @10:48AM
Yeah this must be a real good news to you. Now bend over and take some more!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by choose another one on Friday October 01 2021, @09:56AM (1 child)
Actually, problem is this:
Post anything public on social media, anywhere, ever? If someone comments on your post and that comment is defamatory, YOU are now liable as a publisher.
It probably even applies if you comment and someone replies to your comment. And now for something defamatory... Oopsie, sorry for your loss.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @12:32PM
It also applies to the hoster of the site, to the owners of Internet infrastructure that the "defamatory" IP packets went through, and to the makers of those servers, the human participants' computers, routers along the way, and makers of all the parts inside those, and developers of the software, and the shops that sold the stuff.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @02:16PM (1 child)
This time.
What about next time when something valuable is lost?
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @05:11PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 01 2021, @03:56PM (2 children)
Sure, it doesn't matter because it doesn't impact you personally....
But know this: the minute a law like that passes here I'm going to personally track down all the websites you like, spam the crap out of them, and get them shut down.
Is something of value being lost now?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MostCynical on Friday October 01 2021, @09:25PM (1 child)
if every corporate facebook page dried up, and it was just people chatting and posting pictures of their children, it would be a far nicer place.
as it is is, the whole place is infested with shills and cranks with agendas..
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Saturday October 02 2021, @03:31PM
Nothing I can see in the (reporting of the) judgement limits liability to corporate pages, it is at best limited to any "owner" of a "social media page".
I noted the following in the judgement, p68 ( https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/downloadPdf/2021/HCA/27 [hcourt.gov.au] ):
This is in one of the dissenting opinions, ie. the losing arguments. Ergo it _is_ so, and therefore ALL facebook page owners publishers of third party comments, and liable for them. In Australia.
If you successfully sue the provider of public toilets for graffiti on the walls, a toilet is lost.
If it keeps happening, then sooner or later no one has anywhere to pee when they are out.
And nothing of value is lost ?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 02 2021, @01:35PM (2 children)
Hmm... saw another anti-Facebook post in another thread that was also modded "troll" but obviously wasn't a troll at all. Is Zuckerberg on S/N now?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @05:14PM
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday October 02 2021, @07:10PM
strangely, I wasn't even commenting on FB, just CNN's presence on FB, in Australia, where CNN isn't 'mainstream'
Businesses seem to have simple logic: People are using The Internet, so we need a website/People are using FB, so we need a FB page/People are using Instagram, so we need a presence....
So many businesses have pages that are, at best, feeding some sales, thereby proving "the platform" is "necessary"
Media companies only survive on ratings/clicks - so they self-define.. what is necessary, by chasing clicks..
I doubt CNN got many, so this ruling was just an excuse to close one page, being produced for a country that didn't care.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @06:12AM (1 child)
Primarily it should be the poster who should be liable, secondarily Facebook for providing the amplification. Don't know if a Facebook customer should be liable, but they shouldn't want to have anything to do with stuff that could get them involved in a libel suit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @03:58PM
If advertisers were made responsible, a solution to the problem would be discovered and implemented overnight. We might not like the result, though.
We will probably end up with some DMCA like bullshit. And, just like the bogus DMCA notices, this will have the same, but with far-right trolls generating BS take down requests to stifle any speech critical of Nazism. Some far-right Nazi / evangelical christian / KKK / "alt right" hateful speech will get taken down too, but I predict that the Nazis will "win".
(Score: 2, Troll) by FatPhil on Friday October 01 2021, @08:16AM (7 children)
how about we ask *for what* should whoever is liable be liable. Liable for posting something that offended somebody? That's no liability at all, and should just be ignored, any idiot can fake offence at anything. For spreading misinformation? How about you presume *everything* thereupon, unless it's from a trusted original source, be considered untrustworthy. "I believed a rando on the internet - he must be punished" is retarded - you should be punished for your stupidity. Here's a Tide pod, you know what to do with it, try it in the veins next time.
Channelling Louis CK's nuts: Of course we should be concerned about what's being propagated over the internet. But maybe...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @09:35AM
The answer is literally "defamation" in this case. Not that anyone really cares about suing about the rest because defamation is where the big money is and it is surprisingly easy to prove in many places.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday October 01 2021, @02:48PM (1 child)
> Liable for posting something that offended somebody? That's no liability at all, and should just be ignored
Well that depends entirely on the country of the people and companies involved
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday October 02 2021, @09:12AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 01 2021, @03:51PM (1 child)
Let's pretend all the sexual allegations about Louis CK were fake, someone lied about him and spread it around the internet. Then he lost all his jobs and income because of these lies.
You think that would be totally fine and the liars should face no repercussions at all?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday October 02 2021, @08:47AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 02 2021, @01:43PM (1 child)
You seem to think slander should be legal. I doubt there's a country in the world that allows slander. WTF is wrong with you? "Offended somebody?" I see you're not a RINO [mcgrew.info]. Are you also in favor of posting dangerous Covid misinformation, like injecting anti-worm medication for horses, things that could be deadly?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday October 03 2021, @07:55AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Friday October 01 2021, @10:22AM (20 children)
Just need a law like:
Websites that censor content will be liable for all content, since they've proven they have the means to censor, and consider content dangerous enough to be removed. They are being authoritative, removing agency from the user, and are taking responsibility for that user. Websites that cannot, or do not censor content will not be liable for content. Since they do not think it is dangerous, or do not have the means. The user themselves are in control, the user is liable.
So, if you want control over people, you need to take responsibility for those people. If you don't want control, it's not on you, it's on the people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @11:46AM (2 children)
providing the platform makes you involved.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @12:36PM (1 child)
Does providing food and water make you involved too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @12:26PM
you got me reading damnit. now iagree with further up that a publisher enacting any level of censorship is an editorial voice and should be liable, whereas the original author is on hook forvast majority blame. just howthat amplification of a party like facebook especially when actively (ai) pushing a statement, is a new world or perhaps bringing a publisher back to editor or even author status.
see also http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/449.html [bailii.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by stretch611 on Friday October 01 2021, @11:55AM (7 children)
So does moderation here on SN count as censorship? Way to involve everyone on this site with mod points. And before you say yes or no, remember you do not decide this but 12 people who may not even understand the internet decide at a trial.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Friday October 01 2021, @12:16PM
I was wondering when SN would get dragged into this.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @01:48PM (5 children)
How that? Moderations don't remove a comment from the site.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 01 2021, @04:32PM (3 children)
Have the admins removed anything?
I do know we have the spam filter. Does pre-emptively censoring posts count? Should that strip us of CDA 230 protections for the next time APK threatens me with violence?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @07:46PM
No, SN shouldn't be liable. For one, it's a massive stretch to treat APK's threats as anything resembling being credible. He's a chickenshit who thinks he can intimidate everyone with his words, while hiding behind his keyboard. But everyone knows he's too inept to carry out any threats that go beyond online harassment and intimidation. Next time he decides to spread misinformation about COVID and vaccines, perhaps I'll finally create an account and correct all of his misinformation. No doubt it will enrage him enough to follow me around for a month or two on SN and cause him to hold a grudge for decades. But the last thing I'd do is actually take APK's threats seriously.
Also, it's important to distinguish between what's technically feasible versus what is practical to do. Virtually every site has the technical capability to delete content. SN could certainly modify the database to remove comments or edit them to remove their content. There certainly could be times they might need to remove or edit comments, like if a particular comment is causing pages to render improperly. In the past, there were bugs in Slash that would allow comments to contain text that would break the rendering of pages, execute Javascript, or display images. It is certainly plausible that SN might want to delete such comments, then fix the vulnerabilities that allow those comments to be posted. However, the ability to do this and the occasional use doesn't mean it's practical for SN's staff to go through and examine every comment on the site to check if it merits being edited or deleted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @10:11PM
The answer to your first question is yes, as it is for the second. The last questions is that as Zeran pointed out, section 230 of the CDA is the only thing keeping SN from being liable.
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday October 02 2021, @02:06PM
Let's say SN censors all those negative posts for you. Now, let's say some random user starts threatening me, and for political reasons SN doesn't censor those posts. Only those that make you feel threatened. SN should be held liable. We've all seem them censor for you. We all know they have a process in place to do so, and I have a reasonable expectation for them to censor such content for me as well. They are being the authoritative gate keeper. Now if they never censor anyone, I have no expectation of protection.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Saturday October 02 2021, @05:26PM
Moderations do not remove content, but they do affect visibility of the comment.
Also, for logged in accounts, a lot of downmods will prevent a user from being able to comment.
While the first one is not as overt as the second, both can be considered as types of censorship.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @02:19PM (2 children)
A website policing and removing bad content should not make them liable for bad content that they fail to identify.
It's like saying, if I try to help a homeless person on the street, I automatically become obligated to help every homeless person on the street.
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @04:05PM (1 child)
> A website policing and removing bad content should not make them liable for bad content that they fail to identify.
The problem is that an ideologically motivated site owner could be very effective at removing content that they disagree with. While using the cover of, "we do what we can, but we can't catch all of it," as their excuse for leaving up e.g., xenophobic hate speech that the site owner agrees with.
A Rupert Murdoch site's comment section is going to be moderated in a very different manner than a comment section run by the ACLU.
So, now your back to needing external policing of comment sections, which is its own can of worms.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 01 2021, @04:25PM
That sounds like freedom of speech to me.
(from my admittedly American perspective)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 01 2021, @03:31PM
It's always on The People® They alone are responsible for what they do, for what they choose to believe, to be controlled or not be controlled is a personal choice. "The devil made me do it" is not an excuse
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @10:15PM (2 children)
So repealing Section 230 then? Welcome to the death of the Internet.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday October 02 2021, @04:52PM (1 child)
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 03 2021, @04:33AM
Because the rest of the world is better, right? Many Internet companies are based in the US precisely because it allows them to get around other countries' stricter laws. You also have to consider the interaction between laws in different countries. And all of that is before they get the calls of "see even the USA tightened down their regulations." No, getting rid of Section 230 would be the mortal blow to the Internet, how long everyone could live in denial of the spreading necrosis is another.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Sunday October 03 2021, @10:59PM (1 child)
I would rather a website does not allow the posting of CP. In your scenario, all websites would remove the ability to moderate to avoid liability, but would also open the gates to 4chan (which others call Hell).
Actually, the most likely outcome of all is simply no comments section at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 04 2021, @08:04AM
If you extend the thinking all the way out, you have a number of people commenting on this website cheering on the idea that the very website they are commenting on get rid of all its comments or completely open the door to all the garbage comments they loathe.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @11:25AM (1 child)
not sure what wants to be perpetrated here: there is really no such thing as "cnn's australia facebook page".
digital information is not a physical commodity you can weight or touch or smell. thus it makes no sense to attribute a physical location to it.
however if you say that "cnn has stopped storing information on facebook storage devices located in australia" ... well ... that is just news that the ugly head of "geo fencing" of the internet is rearing its ugly head again. then again, that is nothing new with australia.
also a quick reminder that when you download digitally, the data doesn't necessarily disappear from original location ... unlike real physical things, like oil disappear s from the ground, shows up in your car tank and its liberated energy is lost forever after stepping on the breaks at the next red redlight (red lights are a forced tax to facilitate more oil liberation from the ground fyi). or, uranium disappears, and steam turns up turning a elec. generator with happiness ensueing whilst watching a electrically facilitated soccer match ... also some rubbish waste atoms need to be dealt with.
*sigh* nobody wants to make laws for new paradigms ... for those that are more serious about studying the law, maybe setting up a think tank (and funding it!) that studies the implications of new technology, like a replicator or a transporter (star trek) and ... a networked computer. for that matter ... just a computer will do! much consideration is put into starting a war with extensive "war games" performed before any one shot is fired. why the same consideration for sane laws for new technology (woohoo a printing press!) isn't implemented is anyone guess.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @12:00PM
Is that what an acid trip is like? Are the colors like, amaaaazing?
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Friday October 01 2021, @01:10PM
One down. A bazillion more to go.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @01:18PM (6 children)
I regularly watch YouTube channels that get more views than CNN. I'm not sure how CNN is relevant to anything anymore, outside those born in the 50s and 60s.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @02:20PM (5 children)
You're missing the point. It is NOT about CNN. It is about the fact that anyone's facebook page could make them liable. How about addressing that?
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 01 2021, @04:27PM (3 children)
Pretty interesting how all that freedom of speech stuff flies right out the window once CNN is involved.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @04:40PM (2 children)
I would point out that the same could apply equally to Fox News.
However, in an attempt to be open minded, the poster might not have meant CNN, but rather Facebook. Nothing of value is lost if a Facebook page is deleted -- regardless of who owns it.
Even if that were the objection, I would point out that the same liability law (in Australia, but Coming Soon to the USA!) would apply to other sites -- like Soylent News.
Those focusing on it being CNN, or a Facebook page, need to look at the bigger picture.
Censorship is always okay when its someone you don't like. I don't have any particular love for CNN. I stopped watching in June 2013 because I no longer trusted CNN.
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 02 2021, @01:48PM (1 child)
Cable is obsolete unless you live somewhere radio waves can't reach, and it's the only place you can watch CNN, although they do have written articles on the internet. Why do you still have cable?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @02:00PM
Because he was born in the 50s or 60s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @01:41PM
Australia's relevance? I regularly visit US states that have larger populations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @01:32PM (4 children)
So CNN expects to be held liable for what a third party posts to the Fecesbook media outlet? I know that things are upside-down over there, but anyone care to explain why this would be CNN's problem, and not Facebook's? Or is this just a convenient excuse?
Also, does this apply only to user-generated comments or also to {GPT3,Tay}-generated comments?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @04:42PM
It is the law. You should know better than to expect it to make sense. Stop trying to be rational.
A law is needed! Because there are bad things on them intarweb tubes!
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @08:46PM (2 children)
They are responsible for comments in much the same way as a newspaper is responsible for the content of the "Letters to the Editor" column. They can explicitly claim the views and opinions are not theirs, but they are still responsible if they publish defamatory letters.
All the court has done is said "You want to be a media outlet, no worries. By the way, you are responsible for what you publish the same as any other media outlet."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @02:36AM (1 child)
No, it's not the same way a newspaper is responsible for the "Letters to the Editor" column. The publishing platform of Facebook comments is Facebook, not CNN. This would be akin to the Washington Post running a section called "Letters to the Editor of Le Monde", and then Le Monde being held liable for the content of the letters published in the Washington Post.
So it's more like "you are responsible by association for what any other media outlet publishes under your name".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 02 2021, @07:15AM
While I could certainly see holding Fecebook responsible as well if they control content, the question would be; Does CNN have control over what shows up on their page?
The question of control is what is important. It is (usually) the publisher who gets sued, not the guy running the printing press.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @01:51PM (4 children)
would we miss it?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @04:46PM (2 children)
The web isn't all bad. Remember when it started. It was a convenient way to access tons of useful information. It still is. But that is now drowned out by advertising and so-called "social" media which is actually antisocial.
Consider a hypothetical experiment.
Suppose we got rid of all "social media" websites. And we kept all sites that were useful sources of information, or commerce, or that served some other useful purpose, even IMDB. Would the web have any value?
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday October 03 2021, @11:34PM (1 child)
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday October 04 2021, @01:52PM
This is the version I first saw many ages ago . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRgNOyCnbqg [youtube.com]
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 02 2021, @01:53PM
WTF is wrong with you??? Never heard of Wikipedia? Google? Foreign newspapers? You're apparently so young you've never known a world without the internet, or so old that the internet is new to you; I had a grandpa like that. My uncle had a bathroom installed in Grandpa's house, but Grandpa still used the outhouse until they put him in a nursing home and he had to use an indoor toilet.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @02:49PM (1 child)
It basically means any site that has content critical of Trump, as it is the Sedition Party who are the ones pushing this. You know, those bastions of Free Speech and defenders of democracy?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @04:30PM
Heh, so weird there are people that think the fat lying turd is not a fascist.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 01 2021, @03:26PM (8 children)
Just part of the standard censorship campaign.
Hold the audience responsible for believing the "slander"
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 01 2021, @04:48PM (3 children)
I would rather people believe true and reliable information.
I don't have a problem with people believing whatever they want. Let the Flat Earthers believe what they want. As long as people's belief don't cause harm to others. That is where I would draw the line. At that point, your belief becomes a problem.
Some people need assistants to hire some assistance.
Other people need assistance to hire some assistants.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Friday October 01 2021, @05:08PM (2 children)
It's up to them to seek it out and ignore the liars, which are only a problem when given credence and attention.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @09:07PM (1 child)
Nobody has the time and resources to do that. That is why there is defamation law in the first place, it is an attempt to put some trust in what media outlets publish.
For instance if your local newspaper started printing scurrilous articles claiming that you are a nice democrat who gives money to orphanages then you could sue them to stop it.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @10:29PM
Don't engage fusty, he is prone to tossing out detailed context as unnecessary. Kinda like trump actually, just stumbling around shitting out poop covered nuggets of edgelordiness.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday October 02 2021, @01:57PM (3 children)
Jesus, another kook who thinks slander should be legal. You're okay with people spreading malicious lies about YOU, or just other people?
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Saturday October 02 2021, @05:43PM (2 children)
I only have a problem with people that choose to believe lies and act maliciously on them. They are the only real problem, the liar's foot soldiers. The problem is with the audience. Focus the effort on them, not some loud mouth clown. That's not to say I don't understand the convenient and beneficial expediency of going after the mouthpiece. It's like animal population control, fixing the males is much more effective the the females. But for humans, regulating speech is always wrong. Tell people to control their reaction instead. It's more difficult but better for the brain, builds up the bullshit detector.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday October 04 2021, @08:27PM (1 child)
People can help being liars, lying is done on purpose. A fool's foolishness is out of the fool's control, and there are a LOT of esily fooled fools. Of course the fool should pay for his foolishness, but so should the liar who triggered it. The fool is ignorant, the liar is malicious.
Impeach Donald Saruman and his sidekick Elon Sauron
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday October 04 2021, @08:42PM
Maliciousness thrives and feeds on ignorance. To kill it, you take away its food supply. You kill the lying snake, and out of ignorance springs another.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 01 2021, @07:37PM (1 child)
Australia used to be such a fine country. Really, a swell place.
Now they're instantly sliding into totalitarianism. It's almost like they're running an experiment to see if they can get away with it before doing the same in the US and elsewhere.
I don't like CNN. It's drivel. But they have a right to speak. We all do. Every free person ought to oppose what the Australian government is doing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 01 2021, @09:01PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law [wikipedia.org]
The AU court is just not allowing Fecebook or CNN to claim they both are and are not the publisher, depending on what is more advantageous at the time. They both claim control over what they publish, but try to disclaim responsibility.