3
0

Fighting fact checking censorship with slander (edit: libel) laws? (wuhan lab )


409 views  9 comments             share      

by Zak   $0.10 total tips   💰tip   follow   2021 May 27, 11:47am  

Patnet poll: Do you think it is libelous (edit, ty) to publicly broadcast that you are removing someone's video content on your platform because your fact checkers called it untrue, if it later turns out that what you posted wasn't untrue?

I'm in general asking the question, but it seems the wuhan lab story that was being censored by facebook falls into this category, and election related posts suggesting there was fraud may fall into this case. Isn't taking down someone's post as "untrue" effectively publicly calling that person a liar? And it does so in a way that causes material harm to the person and damages their reputation, politically and otherwise, correct? If you can prove that you are NOT in fact a liar, wouldn't this public calling of you a liar, selectively and specifically, in fact be slander?

Seems to me there is a good case for a bunch of lawsuits. A whole slew of libel lawsuits could be a pretty fun way to end up taking down facebook, youtube, etc..and putting them back in the place at the very least.
1   Patrick   2021 May 27, 11:54am  

Zak says
Seems to me there is a good case for a bunch of lawsuits.


Yes!

I think there is a lot of potential for lawsuits here, especially because there is a compelling public interest in telling the truth about where Wuhan Virus originated.

Lawsuits are the answer.
2   HunterTits   2021 May 27, 12:11pm  

No. Because a) you are referring to libel, not slander and b) both require that it not only wasn't true, but that those claiming it was knowingly knew it wasn't AND excercised malicious intent claiming otherwise.

That latter requirement is difficult to prove. This is why the NY Times defense team in the PV lawsuit just threw their own reporters under the bus by literally saying, "we didn't know what they were doing!" in order to help shield themselves from the malicious intent part. In otherwords, painting their client as being poor managers.

In France, the standard is just proving that what was said/printed was untrue. Consequently, the press is much more careful in what they say about individuals.

As much as we rip the French, they have one up on us there, don't you agree?
3   stereotomy   2021 May 27, 12:16pm  

HunterTits says
In France, the standard is just proving that what was said/printed was untrue. Consequently, the press is much more careful in what they say about individuals.

As much as we rip the French, they have one up on us there, don't you agree?

OMG the French are actually good for something?
4   Eric Holder   2021 May 27, 12:18pm  

stereotomy says
HunterTits says
In France, the standard is just proving that what was said/printed was untrue. Consequently, the press is much more careful in what they say about individuals.

As much as we rip the French, they have one up on us there, don't you agree?

OMG the French are actually good for something?


They also don't ask for your race/ethnicity at every turn on every form.

On the other hand they do have hare brained laws like "50% weeminz on executive boards".
5   HunterTits   2021 May 27, 12:47pm  

stereotomy says
OMG the French are actually good for something?


More accurate to say: US SUCKS at something relative to France and other nations.
6   Patrick   2021 May 27, 1:08pm  

Eric Holder says
They also don't ask for your race/ethnicity at every turn on every form.


Even better: as I understand it, all government agencies are explicitly forbidden from asking or recording anyone's race, ever.
7   Zak   2021 May 27, 1:30pm  

At the very least, wouldn't hundreds or thousands of libel lawsuits give these companies pause from taking such an action again? In other words, the plaintiffs might not be able to fully prove the malicious intent, but the publishers/defendants would have to take time and resources defending their actions to try to show they weren't being malicious. Ad on top of that, they would be forced to do a similar thing and state on the record that their fact checkers were poor fact checkers, and anyone pointing to a takedown could just bring up the legal docs and say, "nope this isn't incorrect, they claim their own fact checkers are stupid and can't check facts!"

Then if they did it again, you could show malicious intent in that, knowing their fact checkers were not generating valid fact checks, they proceeded to use them to produce the libel anyway.
8   Patrick   2021 May 27, 1:41pm  

Zak says
publishers/defendants would have to take time and resources defending their actions to try to show they weren't being malicious


I think the ultimate problem is that the forces of truth are fighting the forces of infinite money.

Corruption is very profitable. Truth-telling is not usually profitable.

We should still file lawsuits, even if only as a way to annoy the corrupt and publicize their corruption. It will also be effective in the cases where the corrupt elite simply cannot defend their actions publicly.

Actually, a cause for hope: there may be enough winnings in suing the corrupt elite to keep that ball rolling, exactly because the elite have infinite money to lose in those suits.
9   Ceffer   2021 May 27, 1:51pm  

Don't the French have Pomeranians with pink glitter in their fur and knit booties in important cabinet positions?

Please register to comment:

about   best comments   contact   latest images   one year ago   random   suggestions