• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

So... can anyone explain to me why social media gets special protections from defamation?

Wolven_Hour said:
Yes it does, 230 grants complete immunity. Even if you do sue the person who created the content they still don't even have to take it down so people can be slandered for life.
Click to expand...
Courts order removal of the material and hosting sites have to comply. There are law firms that specialize in this. Happens every day.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
They can, they just choose not to. Things can be held for review before publication.
Click to expand...
It would entirely change the nature of social media, require large paid staff, and shut down sites like DP.
 
Redress said:
It would entirely change the nature of social media, require large paid staff, and shut down sites like DP.
Click to expand...

And why is that more important than protecting people's lives from being destroyed through defamation?
Oh it doesn't affect you personally? GTFO.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
Under section 230 internet publishers can post whatever defamatory information they want about anything and be completely shielded from any lawsuit. People deny this is what 230 does but it's true, look it up. The only exception is for child pornography.
Even revenge porn websites are shielded by section 230.
Victims of defamation can still sue the people who create defamatory content but it is easy to be anonymous on the internet which has left victims powerless to take down defamatory, libelous information said about them online.

But I am not posting this to debate 230, rather I'd like to ask defenders of 230 why shouldn't other publishers also be granted 230's protections?

Newspapers, cable News, and book publishers can all be sued for publishing defamation yet online publications which is where 50 percent of Americans get their news get complete immunity.

What is the justification for this?
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of this thing called... the Internet? (And for that matter you may want to look up all the relevant law and regulation on defamation including what "230" really does.)

Right off, 230 does not shield "online publications" entirely from defamation. All it does it shield them from user created content, but anyone associated with those organizations are not immune at all. That said any user who creates content on any website is still labile for their actions, some moron... err, President... calls for violence then the platform has every right to kick that user off the site and dump any content they created. Which brings me to your example of "revenge porn websites," they are also not entirely protected and the user is still responsible for what they uploaded to that site. Victims will have a hard time going after those sites, however they can go after who uploaded that content and they often do.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of knowledge in this area and bring up 230 makes matters worse.
 
Allan said:
Courts order removal of the material and hosting sites have to comply. There are law firms that specialize in this. Happens every day.
Click to expand...

Court orders don't always happen and there will be no lawsuit to begin with if you can't track down the person who wrote it.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Have you ever heard of this thing called... the Internet? (And for that matter you may want to look up all the relevant law and regulation on defamation including what "230" really does.)

Right off, 230 does not shield "online publications" entirely from defamation. All it does it shield them from user created content, but anyone associated with those organizations are not immune at all. That said any user who creates content on any website is still labile for their actions, some moron... err, President... calls for violence then the platform has every right to kick that user off the site and dump any content they created. Which brings me to your example of "revenge porn websites," they are also not entirely protected and the user is still responsible for what they uploaded to that site. Victims will have a hard time going after those sites, however they can go after who uploaded that content and they often do.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of knowledge in this area and bring up 230 makes matters worse.
Click to expand...

Yes it does shield them from defamation so long as they themselves didn't write it, I never claimed otherwise so I don't know what the Hell you are babbling about.

Online publications can post whatever defamatory content they want and they are shielded just so long as someone else wrote it.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
Court orders don't always happen and there will be no lawsuit to begin with if you can't track down the person who wrote it.
Click to expand...
You can still hire a law firm and have the content removed by court order. In addition I think you'd find if you wrote to a webhost and asked for content that's libelous to be removed you might find them helpful. A friend who owns a business wrote to Google about some malicious reviews and they were removed a few days later.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
And why is that more important than protecting people's lives from being destroyed through defamation?
Oh it doesn't affect you personally? GTFO.
Click to expand...
First amendment.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
And why is that more important than protecting people's lives from being destroyed through defamation?
Oh it doesn't affect you personally? GTFO.
Click to expand...
People are protected from defamation. You can sue any user of a social media platform from defamation, and you can request defamatory posts be removed. Do try again, but with less fail.
 
Is the manufacturer of a bullhorn responsible for the words of a tyrant it amplifies?
 
debatepolitics.com is protected by 230

Would the owners of DP put themselves at risk if 230 didn't exist? I wouldn't.
 
Redress said:
People are protected from defamation. You can sue any user of a social media platform from defamation, and you can request defamatory posts be removed. Do try again, but with less fail.
Click to expand...

You can sue individuals if you can't track them down and websites don't have to disclose that info to you nor are they required to take down defamatory posts.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
Why should online publishers be protected from publishing slanderous content then and not other publication mediums?
Click to expand...
I already answered that question. Read my post.


Why should victims of slander have no recourse against online LLCs that baselesslt accuse others of crimes like rape or pedophilia?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

They DO have recourse. They can sue the user who actually posted the allegedly defamatory material. See post above re: Justin Bieber.
 
Visbek said:
I already answered that question. Read my post.



:rolleyes:

They DO have recourse. They can sue the user who actually posted the allegedly defamatory material. See post above re: Justin Bieber.
Click to expand...

They have no recourse if they cannot track them down. People can use proxies to post anonymously on the internet and since publishers are shielded that means no recourse for defamation victims.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
Defamation isn't protected speech, it is called slander and libel.
Click to expand...
It is protected, until a court determines if it is libel or slander. Until then, slander away. Lots of speech ruins people's lives, doesn't make it slander or libel unless it is a lie. We aren't talking about lies necessarily, just speech other people don't like.
 
Allan said:
'Defamation' is the umbrella term for slander and libel.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and those are not protected free speech, there are legal and civil consequ
ASHES said:
It is protected, until a court determines if it is libel or slander. Until then, slander away. Lots of speech ruins people's lives, doesn't make it slander or libel unless it is a lie. We aren't talking about lies necessarily, just speech other people don't like.
Click to expand...

No, we are talking about defamation. If it is true then it isn't defamation.
Victims of defamation never get their day in court because of 230 since publishers are shielded when they post defamation other people wrote even though no other medium has that protection.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
Yeah, and those are not protected free speech, there are legal and civil consequ


No, we are talking about defamation. If it is true then it isn't defamation.
Victims of defamation never get their day in court because of 230 since publishers are shielded when they post defamation other people wrote even though no other medium has that protection.
Click to expand...
They don't get protection if they don't follow the rules. The rules say if you are slandered, you can sue the individual. If you don't know who the individual is, then you subpoena that information from the website. They must provide it. Then you can sue the individual.
 
Wolven_Hour said:
Victims of defamation never get their day in court because of 230 since publishers are shielded when they post defamation other people wrote even though no other medium has that protection.
Click to expand...
Better read 230. It protects the site hosts, not the person who wrote the content. If I write that Wolven_Hour is a crack dealer you can sue me for libel and 230 offers no protection. It does protect DP, but not me.
 
Allan said:
Better read 230. It protects the site hosts, not the person who wrote the content. If I write that Wolven_Hour is a crack dealer you can sue me for libel and 230 offers no protection. It does protect DP, but not me.
Click to expand...
Only if there are economic damages. WH thinks any lie is defamation or libel or slander, it is not. To prove it in court, you must prove 1) jurisdiction of the court, 2) that the statement was a lie, and 3) that you suffered actual damages.

Eta: Re number 2, you not only have to prove it was a lie, but that it was knowingly false. Repeating someone else's lie isn't enough by itself.
 
ASHES said:
Only if there are economic damages. WH thinks any lie is defamation or libel or slander, it is not. To prove it in court, you must prove 1) jurisdiction of the court, 2) that the statement was a lie, and 3) that you suffered actual damages.
Click to expand...
So if Wolfen_Hour's reputation wasn't damaged I can say he's a crack dealer? (jk)
 
Allan said:
Better read 230. It protects the site hosts, not the person who wrote the content. If I write that Wolven_Hour is a crack dealer you can sue me for libel and 230 offers no protection. It does protect DP, but not me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but hypothetically if I couldn't track you I couldn't sue you and the defamation would stay online for life giving me no recourse and potentially ruining my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom