Facebook, Google and Twitter: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,132
See the House Judiciary Committee Hearing in which Facebook, Google, and Twitter are answering questions from live right now. Fun questions like "Do you think you are immune from libel?"

Live stream.
 
Interesting question on libel. The DMCA provides Internet hosts with a safe harbor regarding copyright violation committed by users, but defamation is an entirely different kettle of fish, and communicating someone else's defamatory statement is actionable defamation in most states, IIRC. So Facebook might be liable for a defamatory posting they propagate, even if they have no knowledge of its defamatory nature.

However, this is not legal advice, just my vague recollection from my time as a 1L, and you are not my client.
 
pcgeekesq said:
Interesting question on libel. The DMCA provides Internet hosts with a safe harbor regarding copyright violation committed by users, but defamation is an entirely different kettle of fish, and communicating someone else's defamatory statement is actionable defamation in most states, IIRC. So Facebook might be liable for a defamatory posting they propagate, even if they have no knowledge of its defamatory nature.

However, this is not legal advice, just my vague recollection from my time as a 1L, and you are not my client.
Click to expand...

Varies by state and if I recall you typically have to prove actual damages.
 
kju1 said:
Varies by state and if I recall you typically have to prove actual damages.
Click to expand...
In some states, you don't have to prove damages if it's defamation per se.

"Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore defamatory per se. Typically, if the statements do not fall into one of these categories the plaintiff is required to prove his damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:
  • Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
  • Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
  • Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
  • Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession"
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html

Disclaimer: this is not legal advice, you are not my client, scorpions are not cute.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kju1
like this
pcgeekesq said:
In some states, you don't have to prove damages if it's defamation per se.

"Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore defamatory per se. Typically, if the statements do not fall into one of these categories the plaintiff is required to prove his damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:
  • Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
  • Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
  • Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
  • Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession"
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html
Click to expand...

I guess this is legal advice then ;). J/k based on your other posts containing the "this is not legal advice" and this one lacking that disclaimer...
 
What in the actual F...did anyone see Mr. Jeffries "speaking"? What a ridicul...there are simply no words. What does any of the President meeting with Putin have to do with social media??
 
"Truth is not relative, an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange".

In my youth I would have agreed with this but I don't think it's this cut and dry anymore. Almost every Facebook debate I've participated in involved someone defending what they believed to be the truth.
 
DarkStar02 said:
"Truth is not relative, an apple is an apple and an orange is an orange".

In my youth I would have agreed with this but I don't think it's this cut and dry anymore. Almost every Facebook debate I've participated in involved someone defending what they believed to be the truth.
Click to expand...


Someone disagreeing on what an apple is does not make an apple anything different. The analogy is a poor one though. Rather say: Facts are immutable and not debatable. Everything else is theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DocNo
like this
Did they literally pick all of the "special" Representatives for this committee?

WTF does Jeffries questions have to do with anything on content filtering?
 
kju1 said:
Someone disagreeing on what an apple is does not make an apple anything different. The analogy is a poor one though. Rather say: Facts are immutable and not debatable. Everything else is theory.
Click to expand...

I agree with your sentiment regarding facts as opposed to her quote stating that "truth is not relative". For example, is abortion murder? Are transgender people who are not biologically intersex mentally ill? Does thought require language? Do human beings have free will? etc.
 
DarkStar02 said:
I agree with your sentiment regarding facts as opposed to her quote stating that "truth is not relative". For example, is abortion murder? Are transgender people who are not biologically intersex mentally ill? Does thought require language? Do human beings have free will? etc.
Click to expand...

This and the fact that many "facts" are not actually facts, but summary judgements based on potentially unreliable information of potentially unknown origin, conveyed by potentially unknown persons of unknown motive.

Add on the fact that people don't always agree on definitions or accounts and that value stacks vary wildly in our culture and we're all suffering from multiple biases (especially confirmation bias) and the (American) Left and the Right are essentially speaking different languages.

And that's not even addressing the question of whether either side is an honest broker or can be trusted to play fair when it's far more advantageous to hype the bad, ignore the good and demagogue the living hell out of everything you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top