you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Yep - a nothingburger in the form of: OMG - wait until you see the Tweets Feds didn't want to be shared!! But there is a market for influence, involving numerous special interests, only one of which is a Democrat team, sometimes called, 'Biden', so that dimwits can think he's somehow mastermind of all of it.

Spreading misinformation and disinformation repeatedly effectively convinces many readers that these lies are true, or that they are not necessarily false. That's why a lot of money was invested in sharing these lies. Did political groups and Feds have a right to try to stop the spread of those lies? When there was no evidence to support those claims as factual, it was legitimate to restrict the spreading of lies, regardless of what we may learn about that information in the future.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Did political groups and Feds have a right to try to stop the spread of those lies?

No, in America, lying is protected by the first amendment. The government has no right or obligation or ethical reason to change Twitter content. It may even be criminal to do so.

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It may even be criminal to do so.

Not in the least. One can and should actively protect themselves and others from libel, slander and defamation, and can sue those who are guilty of this abuse.

What is not protected by the 1st amendment: https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/which-types-of-speech-are-not-protected-by-the-first-amendment/

Libel, slander, and defamation law: the basics

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Libel, slander, and defamation law: the basics

Are you aware of how high the bar is for this for journalists? I'll give you an example.

Sarah Palin sued the NYT for printing false information about her, suggesting she was responsible for Gabby Gifford's shooting

Her team proved that information was false

Her team proved NYT knew the information was false

They could not prove the NYT printed the false information 'with malice', and hence NYT was not found guilty.

https://deadline.com/2022/02/sarah-palin-libel-new-york-times-dismissed-1234933150/

It is pretty clear this laptop story would not have met the bar for libel, as even conspiratorial speculation is protected speech

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, though we're not really discussing a lawsuit against a journalist. News media are occasionally sued for libel, slander, and defamation, but it's rare, ot my knowledge.

We're discussing requests for the removal of libel, slander, and defamation from Twitter. Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone.

No.

Anyone can request Twitter remove anything they want, but there isn't anything legally binding about this. They appear to only be responsive to the requests of elected officials, which by law CANNOT be legally binding, as the 1st amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech in this manner

If you mean anyone can send a cease and desist letter from a lawyer, they can also do this, but this is also not legally binding in any way shape or form. These letters are sent by legal teams to signal their willingness to file a suit in court if one does not 'cease and desist'

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Obviously Twitter prioritizes cases according to several factors. You must know that Twitter has removed items that were considered defamatory or abusive to children, or a Star of David Swastika post by Kanye, or whatever. Since you seem to need examples: 5 factors:

Lawyers - legal teams can get Twitter's attention

Social pressure - a group annoyed with Star of David Swastika post by Kanye

Child abuse - duh (really irresponsible to fire the folks who keep this stuff off of Twitter, which can also be used for child trafficking, or abuseses against children who then kill themselves, rape and much more)

EU regulations - also duh: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/30/eu-raises-prospect-of-big-fine-or-ban-if-twitter-fails-to-follow-new-legislation

Coordinated misinformation campaigns, eg. against a US president's son - see note about lawyers above - really not that difficult to understand how and why there were attempts to limit the spread of that misinformation

In short: Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone, and with enough lawyers, get Twitter to restrict a coordinated misinformation campaign

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Social pressure - a group annoyed with Star of David Swastika post by Kanye

That image is the 'Raelian Star', a legally protected and registered trademark of a religious group that does not espouse any hateful views

https://trademarks.justia.com/852/32/n-85232504.html

Anyone can request this and can send a legally-binding 'cease and desist' request to anyone,

I'm still not sure you understand what legally binding means, there isn't any legal obligation created by receiving a cease and desist letter

[–]Schwarzenigga 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Public perception of that star was sufficient to suspend Kanye's account. Context...

'Legally-binding' is a term for a legal letter that binds the plaintiff in this case, not the defendant. It's the plaintiff's legal (binding) record and initiation of legal action, in advance of the potential for a lawsuit.