I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the spee…
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.
I do not disagree with the need to reform this law. It is a difficult and thorny problem however due to the problem I have already alluded to regarding the anonymity afforded to those who speak on these platforms. It should be remembered that the speech and particularly the disinformation promoted objected to by so many is not the speech of the platform but rather those who speak on the platform. Would you sue the owner of a stage or theatre for the speech of someone who rents the theatre and its stage? It is a different matter when it is a newspaper or other media where it is the speech of the media or journal owner. The problem with social media is the anonymity and false personas of the speakers making it impossible to identify who is responsible. Let everyone who wishes to speak on those platforms be required to both identify and authenticate themselves and allow for those real identities to be disclosed and held responsible for their speech. I am all for that. They can still be free under the first amendment to speak falsehoods and misinformation, the first amendment does not prevent that. But at least we can hold them accountable for their speech. And, if in fact, they do render slander or libel, incite or threaten violence, they can be held accountable for that as well.
In saying this is not the time or place for this discussion, I was referring only to Dr. Richardson's wonderful forum, which I am loath to monopolize to discuss a topic she did not bring up. Her own thoughts and words are far more important than mine.
Bruce, I will address a serious example of this in comment tomorrow or early next week. Your discussion of this big problem with other subscribers was of great interest to me. There will be more. Thank you.