Please help me understand: why shouldn't online sites be held accountable [View all]

[DonaldsRump]

Last edited Sun Feb 7, 2021, 06:55 AM - Edit history (2)

for defamation broadcast through their messaging systems?

The Supermatic and Dominion defamation lawsuits clearly demonstrate that massive civil damages claims against broadcasters of defamatory words carry serious liability and may actually change their willingness to allow this nonsense. IMO, this will greatly help to reduce outright lies that are being widely disseminated.

What's wrong with holding online sites that host defamatory content liable, regardless of whether the content is what they generated or what their users generated?

Let me contrast this from an ISP that does not host sites. There is clearly a distinction there.

I would love your thoughts.

On edit: I've found this discussion truly fascinating, and I have enjoyed hearing others' views. I do want to make it clear that I don't profess to know the "best" or "right" answer to this vexing issue. Nor am I advancing any particular solution.

What I am certain of is that SOMETHING must be done. For example, how did the nonsense that Q-anon has propagated spread so widely and so quickly? Through outright lies totally designed to destroy people (e.g., Hillary Clinton) and the organizations of which they are a part (e.g., the Democratic Party). This took around 2-3 years. And look what it's done.

It's fine that the mainstream social media has taken some significant actions to try to stop this (and Trump's) nonsense. However, all of these purveyors of lies simply move on to another online site.

There has to be a way to hold sites accountable for the content they broadcast/disseminate, whether it's their own content or user-generated content. If not, dangerous garbage like Q-anon will continue to propagate. And foreign actors (e.g., Russia) or domestic actors (i.e., our lovely homegrown domestic terrorists) will use the internet as their unchecked tool to do what they want.

I used to think I was a First Amendment absolutist. I realize that there are clear boundaries, though, with the First Amendment. Defamation is one of them. Using defamation to stop the spread of lies clearly has worked by the Smartmatic and Dominion lawsuits, merely by filing complaints. Lou Dobbs is gone, Fox is being reined in, OAN is tamping down its nonsense. Not for one moment do I believe that it will stop all of their individual or collective nonsense, but it sure doesn't hurt.

The same tool could be applied to online social media and blogging sites. If there are other or better tools, I'd love to hear them. The point is that SOMETHING has to be done: this cannot go on any longer.

I am not talking about chilling opinion (e.g., "I hate Senator X" ). What I am talking about is stopping lies (e.g., "Senator X eats babies. Senator X is a Democrat. Therefore, the Democratic Party is a bunch of baby eaters." ) from propagating so widely and so quickly. It has to stop.