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.
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,009,466 comments by 12,327 users - FarmersWon, Hircus, pudil online now
« prev random next »
Fighting fact checking censorship with slander (edit: libel) laws? (wuhan lab )
By Zak
follow Zak
2021 May 27, 11:47am
281 views
9 comments
share
2
HunterTits
2021 May 27, 12:11pm
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?
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
stereotomy
2021 May 27, 12:16pm
HunterTits says
OMG the French are actually good for something?
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
Eric Holder
2021 May 27, 12:18pm
stereotomy says
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".
HunterTits saysIn 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
HunterTits
2021 May 27, 12:47pm
stereotomy says
More accurate to say: US SUCKS at something relative to France and other nations.
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
Patrick
2021 May 27, 1:08pm
Eric Holder says
Even better: as I understand it, all government agencies are explicitly forbidden from asking or recording anyone's race, ever.
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.
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
Patrick
2021 May 27, 1:41pm
Zak says
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.
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
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?
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.