|
|
Post by vilepagan on May 29, 2020 2:42:13 GMT -8
More on Twitter's mistaken attempt to edit Donald Trump's speech. If they are merely a platform then this type of censorship is impermissible. If they instead want to editorialize then they are a publisher and should be stripped of the legal protections from libel suits that they currently enjoy. But if Twitter is a private social media platform, like this is sort of, doesn't the owner have the right to do as he pleases? Of course they do. This is just another attempt by trump to get his followers worked up about something that's nothing. Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who just repeat tweets without thinking. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,895
|
Post by Bick on May 29, 2020 5:56:25 GMT -8
But legally they're not treated as a private publisher, who would be subject to libel for allowing malicious and false statements that they published on their platform (print or digital). Since Twitter portrays itself as a public platform--though privately owned--they cannot currently be held liable for any of their users' tweets. If they are going to get in the business of editorializing (like they did in trying to add a "fact check" notice on the President's tweet about voter fraud), then they're going to have to face the same liability as the New York Times or any other privately owned publisher would. Twitter does have the right to do as they please; however, they do not have a right to immunity from doing whatever they please. By providing a space for discussion, would the person providing that space be responsible for what someone else said in that space, libelous or not? Other than scale, I don't understand the difference between Twitter, OCC, and here. Participation is a completely voluntary act, and if you don't like the way it's being moderated, you're free to leave, right? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 29, 2020 7:57:34 GMT -8
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. 2) The libel should be a narrative, specious, clear, direct, certain, not general, nor alternative. 3 Law's Eccl. Law. 147. It should contain, substantially, the following requisites: - The name, description, and addition of the plaintiff, who makes his demand by bringing his action.
- The name, description, and addition of the defendant...
pseudonyms in an opinion forum like this don’t identify any specific individual. i can say, for example, VilePagan is a moronic, aberrant sociopath all day long. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,895
|
Post by Bick on May 29, 2020 8:00:28 GMT -8
Understand what libel and slander are. Just don't see how a site owner would be responsible for what others say.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 29, 2020 8:13:03 GMT -8
Understand what libel and slander are. Just don't see how a site owner would be responsible for what others say. Under the premise that, on any given day, anyone can sue anyone else for anything, a sympathetic jury could conceivably find the site owner had the opportunity to stop or change or delete the libel, but did nothing. legally, I do not believe the site owner can be held responsible for the opinions of others and, after all, we ARE an opinion forum whose purpose IS to state our opinions and, then, argue over them. I’m not a real lawyer, but I did play one in a Jr. High School play, once. |
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by thefrog on May 29, 2020 8:39:36 GMT -8
Understand what libel and slander are. Just don't see how a site owner would be responsible for what others say. Under the premise that, on any given day, anyone can sue anyone else for anything, a sympathetic jury could conceivably find the site owner had the opportunity to stop or change or delete the libel, but did nothing. legally, I do not believe the site owner can be held responsible for the opinions of others and, after all, we ARE an opinion forum whose purpose IS to state our opinions and, then, argue over them. I’m not a real lawyer, but I did play one in a Jr. High School play, once. Note I am not giving advice in any way, but nothing here is libel if discussing a public official or figure (which is the norm here). It becomes libel when you knew the statement was false or were reckless in verifying the accuracy of your statements... (I’m sure a small number would argue the second point) Furthermore, generally everything posted on this board is opinion which is NOT libel. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 29, 2020 8:39:54 GMT -8
The pandemic is fizzling out so now the Democrat Media Complex is pushing a race war in America.
|
|
thefrog
Eminence Grise
Posts: 1,818
|
Post by thefrog on May 29, 2020 8:41:29 GMT -8
Sorry, also, there are four elements to California defamation and I seriously doubt a Court would find the majority of you had the intent to defame anyone here... Again, that point could be argued by a minority of posters here
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on May 29, 2020 8:43:47 GMT -8
The pandemic is fizzling out so now the Democrat Media Complex is pushing a race war in America. all part of the larger plan that was launched when Trump won. EVERYTHING we have seen from the democrats, liberals, progressives and socialists since then... everything is aimed at depressing America under Trumps watch, in hopes that will persuade voters to give them the election in November. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 29, 2020 8:55:22 GMT -8
Understand what libel and slander are. Just don't see how a site owner would be responsible for what others say. You, as the site owner, are NOT responsible for what we say since you are providing an open platform. You do not claim responsibility for the words of your members. You can create rules for the site and even delete posts and ban users for violating the rules, but you are not editing content. Therefore you are not subject to the liability a publisher. (Plus, message boards like this have such a small reach that there is almost no possibility for damages great enough to generate a legal claim of harm, plus the fact that we are all anonymous nullifies this anyway.} The New York Times is liable for its content. And if Twitter is going to get into the business of editing the President's tweets, then they risk losing their status as a platform and may be legally treated a publisher. That's the dispute. Trump is arguing for total unlimited free speech on Twitter--as it should be. Twitter is trying to edit his content--and that's the problem. p.s. Whatever dispute we have will be settled at the Servite-Los Al scrimmage in August. No stinking attorneys necessary. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by RSM789 on May 29, 2020 9:30:06 GMT -8
More on Twitter's mistaken attempt to edit Donald Trump's speech. If they are merely a platform then this type of censorship is impermissible. If they instead want to editorialize then they are a publisher and should be stripped of the legal protections from libel suits that they currently enjoy. But if Twitter is a private social media platform, like this is sort of, doesn't the owner have the right to do as he pleases? I sure as hell hope I'm not exposing myself to any litigation by NOT censoring as some other sites do. I believe the issue is not private versus public, but one of censorship or editorializing versus everything goes. The tech companies have been absolved of any libel or other tort if their platform is one where individuals just post things with no action from the tech company (the individuals are the ones liable for what they post). If they modify the platform to one where they censor or editorialize (which they can do), then they lose that protection from being sued. They are welcome to make such modification, but it comes with consequences. All the more reason for this site to continue down its golden path... |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by RSM789 on May 29, 2020 9:33:50 GMT -8
1. Twitter did not edit anyone's speech, nor did they "attempt" to edit anyone's speech. They merely tagged his post with a fact-check and provided factual information on the topic of his speech to counter the bullshit he was spreading. 2. Twitter did not censor anyone's speech. It doesn't matter if they're a "platform" or a "publisher". They run a privately owned website and they can monitor the content that appears on their site as they see fit. The trump administration is trying to bully them into complying with their wishes by threatening them and crying about 'free speech" like a bunch of idiots. They have no more right to say whatever they want on Twitter than I have to say whatever I want here. Wrong, wrong and wrong |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,812
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on May 29, 2020 10:12:29 GMT -8
You, as the site owner, are NOT responsible for what we say since you are providing an open platform. You do not claim responsibility for the words of your members. You can create rules for the site and even delete posts and ban users for violating the rules, but you are not editing content. Therefore you are not subject to the liability a publisher. And if Twitter is going to get into the business of editing the President's tweets, then they risk losing their status as a platform and may be legally treated a publisher. That raises an interesting point. On TOB, JQP long ago implemented a program that replaces certain "swear words" with "term I like to refer to myself as". Does that mean he is censoring/editing, and therefore a publisher? Does it make him liable for all the inane comments posted by Wabash? |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on May 29, 2020 14:44:05 GMT -8
1. Twitter did not edit anyone's speech, nor did they "attempt" to edit anyone's speech. They merely tagged his post with a fact-check and provided factual information on the topic of his speech to counter the bullshit he was spreading. 2. Twitter did not censor anyone's speech. It doesn't matter if they're a "platform" or a "publisher". They run a privately owned website and they can monitor the content that appears on their site as they see fit. The trump administration is trying to bully them into complying with their wishes by threatening them and crying about 'free speech" like a bunch of idiots. They have no more right to say whatever they want on Twitter than I have to say whatever I want here. Wrong, wrong and wrong What he said. And their "fact-check" was incorrect, by the way. It was nothing more than someone else's opinion. Twitter's speech police apparently have the same defect of a certain person on this site: both are under the delusion that an opinion that differs with their own is a "lie." |
|
duke
Statesman
Posts: 681
|
Post by duke on May 29, 2020 15:22:59 GMT -8
Their fact check was an obvious lie. The President countered with Schiff tweeting for 3.5 years about the Russia hoax, and didn't receive a " fact check." The media is now all over the President for using this as an example. I guess they must still believe in Russian Collusion. LOL
|
|
