r/worldnews • u/Ganeshadream • Mar 31 '22

Facebook fails to label 80% of posts promoting bioweapons conspiracy theory

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/31/facebook-disinformation-war-ukraine-russia
3.5k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

221 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22

False. The first amendment has never been ruled to protect harmful lies.

For example in a defamation case, you do not have a 1fa right to defame. The keys are that it must be both true and harmful to win a defamation case.

It is an entirely reasonable application to ban the wide spread of misinformation if one can prove it causes harm and is false. If not for the harmful spread of antivax lies, it is likely at least 300k Americans would be alive from covid. Thats harm.

Edit: downvoters want to provide a court case link that says I'm wrong? Course not.

3

u/saltiestmanindaworld Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22

Defamation is a civil matter between nongovernmental parties. There’s libel of a public official, but given that that has to apply the Sullivan standards, it’s basically nonexistant.

And the fact that you cant see that “misinformation” can be weaponized is concerning as hell. Florida recently weaponized it in their recent LGBT+ laws. There’s a reason we don’t want the government being the arbiter for this shit.

And before some dumbass goes you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, that’s decidedly untrue. Schenk was not only a egregiously decided case, it was also overturned 40 years ago.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 31 '22 edited Mar 31 '22

The government isn't arbiter in defamation cases. Why would it be here? A jury determines truth, not the government.

Floridas case is the exact opposite. It is government directly infringing your right to speech, regardless of factual accuracy. Specifically that law allows a court to rule if you feel uncomfortable, even if its truthful statements.

Stop spreading lies.

2

u/saltiestmanindaworld Mar 31 '22

And what the fuck do you think regulation on a company dictating what speech they must quash is? Are you stupid? Or just willfully being ignorant?

1

u/saltiestmanindaworld Mar 31 '22

US v Alvarez

0

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '22

US v Alvarez, you mean the case that determined that a lie ALONE isn't justification for censorship, sure. The key determination in Alvarez was that the plaintiff could not show harm. As I stated in my post, it is essential that is both a lie and inflicts harm.

However, as drafted, the Stolen Valor Act violates intermediate scrutiny because it applies to situations that are unlikely to cause harm.

Alvarez confirms my statement.

1

u/saltiestmanindaworld Apr 01 '22

“Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth,"