Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Natuph]

Well, it can be sad that you spread news when you 'liking' some post in Facebook but to punish the person even not for his words is wrong in my opinion

[hops]

I have a feeling that this is chafing for most people here because you're Americans or are used to countries with free speech. While I obviously find that free speech is good in moderation and live in a country with free speech (barring certain things like denying the Holocaust and other slanderous topics), most countries that aren't the United States have found that it is necessary to censor some things. This just seems like a natural progression. You would frown at the person who nods their head sagely after someone yelled something racist into the room, so why wouldn't you frown at the person who likes a racist post?

[NullForceOmega]

Frown?  Yes.  Call them an idiot?  Yes.  Prevent them from saying it, or trying to punish someone for agreeing with them?  Hell no.

[nenjin]

As Americans, we resent being legally penalized for our beliefs. That's what it cuts to. Your average American will probably say "I don't care if you disapprove of me." But when you're like "I disapprove, and you're going to jail/paying a fine/getting stripped of some legal status" that's when we get pissed off. Because most Americans I'd like to think understand that their beliefs are not law and since they wouldn't generally act on them, they resent being treated as if they would.

That said. America has not had to deal with beliefs becoming reality and eventually nightmares to the degree Europe has. We've had bombers, terrorists, mass shootings and murder based on unpopular and evil beliefs. But we've never seen the country taken over by them or had them suck our whole region into armed conflict....yet. And with the whole SJW thing here in America and on the internet right now, censorship even for the right reasons is even less popular and more open to debate than I feel like it's been in a while. And not in a good, positive way. In a sneering, kind of contemptuous way. The value of censorship if only to spare people's feelings is pretty much zero right now.

Of course there is a very broad gap between obnoxious or unpopular opinions and what the OP cited. But they live in the same house.

[Neonivek]

Ahh yes that old argument

"if we wouldn't let our enemies have guns, why would we allow them opinions?"

It is probably what a country would raise their glass and say when they made protests a capital crime. That in their country protests can genuinely lead to bloodshed. They would be right of course, and yes they are genuinely saving lives with that law.

I am not trying to create a hyperbole, simply saying... Who is at fault?

Is this life support or an infected bandaid? Are they trying to fix the problem or only make a grand showing that they aren't the problem?

---

Don't get me wrong I am sympathetic to hard choices that wouldn't fly in other countries. Yet is THIS one of them?

Is this country in such dire need to quall sedition that it must go to these lengths?

[smjjames]

You know, wouldn't it be better to sue the creator of the facebook message for libel? Seems like targeting 'likes' is going after completely the wrong target, the person can't spread the libel if the libel isn't even there.

[Neonivek]

You know, wouldn't it be better to sue the creator of the facebook message for libel? Seems like targeting 'likes' is going after completely the wrong target, the person can't spread the libel if the libel isn't even there.

Here is likely what actually occurred...

The person who left the likes are someone they wanted locked up. They bent the laws over backwards to put them, and similar people, in jail/debt/whathaveyou.

Now not only is it illegal to make these claims but it is also illegal to respond to them in anyway.

So now a bad person makes a bad post... You can now go after all their supporters as much as you want.

---

HOWEVER! I don't think the money charge is the real motive behind this. I mean it could be used as a method of dissuasion or petty "Well if I can get you some way"... But having additional crimes in a single event does very impressive things to the legal system.

For example "Breaking and Entering" is the crime of entering private property with the intent of committing another crime.

Tax Evasion is often used as a way of charging someone with a crime whose crimes you cannot prove.

---

Or rather... if they wanted the people who handle Facebook to be charged, that is the angle they would have went with. Yet I don't think the impetus for this has anything to do with Facebook itself.

[smjjames]

Either way, I think there is a heck of a lot of context that isn't being shown because I can see this opening a whole load of legal can of worms. Also, wouldn't they have to show intent of spreading libel?

[Neonivek]

Either way, I think there is a heck of a lot of context that isn't being shown because I can see this opening a whole load of legal can of worms. Also, wouldn't they have to show intent of spreading libel?

Everyone who uses the internet knows how Facebook works.

That alone could be taken as intent. Assuming that is what the charge is (which is likely isn't, because then they would have to calculate damages).

Though yes both context and cultural context AND basic news "Headlining" are unknown. So I am VERY much jumping the gun.

I mean it wouldn't be the first time someone posted an article on Bay12 that was outrageous... and it turned out to be "fake" (as in they were omitting details to make it sound worse).

[Frumple]

You know, wouldn't it be better to sue the creator of the facebook message for libel? Seems like targeting 'likes' is going after completely the wrong target, the person can't spread the libel if the libel isn't even there.

Nah. Forget the exact fiddly bits of it, but we've got safe harbor laws for that, or something along those lines. Running a platform or medium nets you a lot more slack than using a provided medium, by and large.

Which is generally a good thing, because otherwise internet soft infrastructure (websites, etc.) would resemble an eternal sisyphean hell of legalistic sodomite orgies.