General Discussion

Marrah_Goodman

(1,587 posts)

66. I understand that you want something done

Sun Feb 7, 2021, 03:31 PM

Feb 2021

But what you are missing is that if people can sue message boards for speech, that will be the end of sites like this one. The owners would shut down rather then have to spend all their time and money fighting lawsuits.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please help me understand: why shouldn't online sites be held accountable [View all] DonaldsRump Feb 2021 OP

should DU be liable for what you post/say here? after all what you think is fine may by msongs Feb 2021 #1

Doesn't that apply to print media as well? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #3

How many readers' letters do print media publish? Very few. muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #10

but they do publish comments dsc Feb 2021 #26

When they publish comments on the web, they're covered by section 230 as well muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #47

What does it matter if destroys sites like DU or Daily Kos? Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #25

I think perhaps frazzled Feb 2021 #5

You could be sued even if it is taken down...it will be abused by the right. Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #27

Good article here. Cattledog Feb 2021 #2

Great cite, and thank you DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #4

TV broadcasts, newsprint articles, etc. have editors. Make7 Feb 2021 #12

I'm actually fine with that DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #13

It is quite simple, they can control what is printed. Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #28

Then there is no accountability and anything goes? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #46

They are protected but they should be held accountable JI7 Feb 2021 #6

Think of a hosting service or website as a house with owners. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #7

Not exactly DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #8

I'm pretty certain the paper would be found not liable. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #11

I am not talking about opinions DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #16

I do not agree with holding them to the same standards. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #22

It is PRECISELY because of the "massiveness" (if that's a word) of data DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #23

Fight misinformation with information. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #33

No need to make ad hominem arguments DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #35

My apologies, I will edit... cayugafalls Feb 2021 #37

It won't stop there...leave the internet free. Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #29

Ok. So shall we allow allow media to dispense whatever lies they want to? nt DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #32

I, like you, want the internet to remain a free an open community. cayugafalls Feb 2021 #36

Suppose a person put up a fence and invited people to do graffiti and post messages on it Klaralven Feb 2021 #9

If the fence owner takes it down right away, that's relevant DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #14

The fence owner may not know whether the message is defamatory Klaralven Feb 2021 #15

And if the fence owner doesn't, does that make them liable? nt DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #17

I think they have a duty to take it down just as if a copyright holder complains about an owned work Klaralven Feb 2021 #18

I totally agree DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #19

It is a very bad idea... Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #30

How much time should the owner of DU spend reading every post? brooklynite Feb 2021 #20

What about a small town newspaper? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #21

An editorial decision to publish false statements as fact is already liable for civil action... brooklynite Feb 2021 #39

Just Consider the Volume of the Posts on DU TuskMoar Feb 2021 #43

That's exactly the issue DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #44

No, the jury system is not a vetting system muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #48

It is the start of a vetting system DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #49

You'd be laughed out of Court if you presented the Jury system as a defense..... brooklynite Feb 2021 #53

Glad to hear you think DU's jury system is worthless DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #54

It works terribly as an arbiter of FACT.... brooklynite Feb 2021 #55

I kinda' understand the issue of civil liability DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #56

An example of the jury system in action on Discussionist muriel_volestrangler Feb 2021 #67

I totally agree DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #68

DU's Vetting System Would Not Hold Legal Muster TuskMoar Feb 2021 #59

I have said this multiple times DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #61

GAWKER was Bankrupted for Reporting the Truth TuskMoar Feb 2021 #63

DU has a system in place to remove posts . Twitter KNEW the shit Trump was posting and did nothing JI7 Feb 2021 #50

If you allow websites to be sued for content posted by others, you open the door for Demsrule86 Feb 2021 #24

I am totally in favor of DU, but I am not in favor of other sites DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #31

And that's fine. Dr. Strange Feb 2021 #64

In Spite of What People Say TuskMoar Feb 2021 #34

So you are say anything is fine? nt DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #38

I am Saying You Are Proposing the Wrong Solution TuskMoar Feb 2021 #40

So you're fine with anything goes then? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #45

That is Not at All What I Said TuskMoar Feb 2021 #57

The critical issue is with those fora that have no rules DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #58

Hold the Person Who Made the Post TuskMoar Feb 2021 #71

See posts 69 and 70 DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #72

I understand that you want something done Marrah_Goodman Feb 2021 #66

True, but you could say that about many small businesses, online or not? DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #69

Might as well just imprison everyone who opposes you if you want to go that far ansible Feb 2021 #41

That's the way it is for print and broadcast media. DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #42

Right , there are ALREADY standards in place to control these things. Just apply it to social media JI7 Feb 2021 #51

Agreed. DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #52

My opinion, Trump is an immoral, dishonest skunk who deserves jail. KentuckyWoman Feb 2021 #60

Better options: BarackTheVote Feb 2021 #62

Frankly, the courts would be overwhelmed with lawsuits Marrah_Goodman Feb 2021 #65

See my post at #69 DonaldsRump Feb 2021 #70