Let’s say hacker news could be sued for me posting a comment threatening to kill you and refusing to remove it.
Because in many states (maybe all?) they can be.
Remember, websites are only given immunity if they fail to remove “sueable” content.
Will they (hacker news):
a. Prescreen all comments, like a publisher prescreens manuscripts, or
b. Just do away with user-submitted content, or
c. Let everyone say whatever they want in an orgy of freedom with no moderation whatsoever?
Privately owned media sites will never, ever be a public square just because people use them the same way my yard isn’t a public square because you can walk across it on the way to ring my doorbell so you can ask to put a campaign sign in my grass.
Is the President of the United States of America sharing a video calling for the death of his political opponents a “sue worthy” event? What if he gave a speech saying that? Or published a presidential decree calling for it?
Some people see bigots saying “whatever dude it was just a satire joke” for what it is: bullshit.
Because in many states (maybe all?) they can be.
Remember, websites are only given immunity if they fail to remove “sueable” content.
Will they (hacker news):
a. Prescreen all comments, like a publisher prescreens manuscripts, or
b. Just do away with user-submitted content, or
c. Let everyone say whatever they want in an orgy of freedom with no moderation whatsoever?
Privately owned media sites will never, ever be a public square just because people use them the same way my yard isn’t a public square because you can walk across it on the way to ring my doorbell so you can ask to put a campaign sign in my grass.
Is the President of the United States of America sharing a video calling for the death of his political opponents a “sue worthy” event? What if he gave a speech saying that? Or published a presidential decree calling for it?
Some people see bigots saying “whatever dude it was just a satire joke” for what it is: bullshit.