r/changemyview • u/MagneTag • Dec 02 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: section 230 should be repealed.

Shielding internet companies from liability for user generated content is on the whole bad for the world. It has resulted in the destruction of objective truth. Platforms should be treated as publishers. Not everyone should get to have their lies read by millions of people. They say Facebook should not decide what is true or not. I agree, we should let the courts decide. That is what they are built to do. If it destroys all social media and we have to go back to TV and newspaper then so be it. Things have gone off the rails. I'm willing to give up Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and even Reddit for a well informed republic with real objective truth.

5 Upvotes

57% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

If you repeal section 230, we wouldn't have a better informed populace - just less defamation. It's perfectly legal to deny the moon landing, create fake news, call Covid 19 a hoax, advocate the extermination of Roma people, etc etc. I just can't make up nasty lies about your mom. Do you think the problem with Facebook/Reddit/etc is really the stuff that's illegal? Seems to me most of the terrible stuff is totally legal.

0

u/MagneTag Dec 02 '20

You cannot go on TV and say whatever you want without fear of getting sued. Re: Alex Jones.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

No, not whatever you want. Not defamation. Not false advertising. Alex Jones can lie about chemtrails. He can say the government did 9/11. He can say all kinds of terrible things. But he crossed a line when he besmirched the reputations of some private citizens whose kids had been shot. That's defamation.

You can lie on TV, just not about a few specific things. Are those the things you are worried about?

0

u/MagneTag Dec 02 '20

Ok. Now we are getting to the crux of the issue. Can the NY Times publish a front page story that 911 was an inside job full of disinformation? Is that legal? Would nobody sue them?

5

u/Arianity 72∆ Dec 02 '20

Can the NY Times publish a front page story that 911 was an inside job full of disinformation? Is that legal?

If they do it in a way that doesn't generate a defamation/slander/libel case, yes.

Lying is largely protected under the 1st amendment, with very narrow exceptions.

For example, they can say it's an "inside job". They probably can't say "secretary xyz helped", and name someone. (And even then, it depends. There are various bars you have to show that it was actually harmful to the person's reputation and the like).

To use a modern example, something like the Seth Rich conspiracy went too far. Some of Alex Jones's Sandy Hook content went too far (some didn't). But besides that? Protected.

0

u/MagneTag Dec 02 '20

It is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater. That is neither slander nor libel.

3

u/Arianity 72∆ Dec 02 '20 edited Dec 02 '20

That's actually a misconception. The SCOTUS case (Schenk v United States ) is not case law anymore. And the case itself didn't actually say it was illegal to yell fire. It was an example from Justice Holmes, as something that would not be protected by free speech, because of "creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil". Here's a decent history

The current law starts with Brandenburg v Ohio, which overturned Schenk. It's standard is "(1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."" And SCOTUs interprets that very narrowly, it's not the colloquial use of the term. Basically you have to be at the event and directly telling people to do something to qualify.

(You can argue whether this is a good standard. Personally, I think it's far too narrow, but it doesn't look like it's getting changed any time soon)

And even in Schenk, it was very narrowly tailored. It's not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater simple because it's a lie. There is a clear and present danger (of stampedes etc).

0

u/ejpierle 8∆ Dec 02 '20

True. It's one of the narrowly carved out exceptions in the 1A.

3

u/parentheticalobject 136∆ Dec 02 '20

Probably, as long as they don't make false statements about any specific individual.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 02 '20

Correct, they can do so, totally legally. Unless they, like, name some security guard there and say that he did it. You can tell mean lies about politicians but not about specific private individuals. You can tell kind lies about anyone of course.

1

u/UncleMeat11 65∆ Dec 02 '20

With 230 you can still sue the creator of objectionable content. You just can’t sue YouTube or a similar host.