Under these conditions it wouldn't have to even be either of those situations. I could be as simple as some average Joe "liking" some piece of media that's considered "fake," or "harmful" to some entity.
[RD] Liking Facebook Post Leads to Libel Charge
- Thread starter BvBPL
- Start date
Under these conditions it wouldn't have to even be either of those situations. I could be as simple as some average Joe "liking" some piece of media that's considered "fake," or "harmful" to some entity.
Yes, both are libel.
But whether or not a court would allow a tort to move forward is a different question. And the question as to how much the damages would be is another.
Remember, 'libel' is a harmful falsehood. You have to show harm. That's a separate question from whether 'liking' a Facebook post is the same as knowingly publishing something.
Yes, I agree on the definition of libel and what the court would have to prove.
I simply don't believe that liking a Facebook post meets the criteria for causing harm, or knowingly publishing. Of course some liberal judge could decide tomorrow that it does meet the criteria because he didn't like the information that some guy "liked" on Facebook. Then it's law because we now have a case precedent.
Last edited:
A court wouldn't have to prove it. It's a tort. The plaintiff would have to meet the burden according to the local legal system.
Given that voluntary actions are required in order to actually 'like' a post, this isn't even a case of negligence. If you see a harmful falsehood, and spread it to your friends to see, you're engaging in libel. If you see a harmful post, and are unsure of its truth, then you're still willfully spreading harmful information. If that information is false, then you've committed libel.
The alt-Right misinformation hate crowd has a different social standard. But the common law is pretty clear and easy to understand.
Given that voluntary actions are required in order to actually 'like' a post, this isn't even a case of negligence. If you see a harmful falsehood, and spread it to your friends to see, you're engaging in libel. If you see a harmful post, and are unsure of its truth, then you're still willfully spreading harmful information. If that information is false, then you've committed libel.
The alt-Right misinformation hate crowd has a different social standard. But the common law is pretty clear and easy to understand.
I understand how the courts work. That's semantics.
"What the court would have to base their decision on," would be the proper way to put it.
Yes, we do have a different standard. We're not tyrannical and we don't think charging someone for liking a post on Facebook is a good idea.
If that's the kind of world you want to live in have at it. Just don't complain about it later.
Last edited:
Well, the Alt-Right are tyrannical, in that they believe that it is okay to spread harmful lies about people. As long as there's plausible deniability about intent. It's not a movement of 'personal responsibility'!
Trump wouldn't have happened without Alex Jones birtherism. His campaign would have been dead in the water after spreading lies about Muslim Americans and black americans. Tweets like "Obama is sick, he wiretapped me" would have been understood to have been actually unacceptable.
Heck, the major plank of the campaign was that people wanted to decide who I may or may not hire to be a nanny or gardener.
There's a large difference when it comes to the nature of falsehoods. Even if we accept that politicians lie, the spreading of hateful falsehoods in order to scapegoat is another type of lie entirely. This is the type of harm libel tries to protect against. It's why I'd not expect members of the Alt Right to accept the idea of 'punishing those who hatefully lie if it causes harm'. Their movements need that ability.
Trump wouldn't have happened without Alex Jones birtherism. His campaign would have been dead in the water after spreading lies about Muslim Americans and black americans. Tweets like "Obama is sick, he wiretapped me" would have been understood to have been actually unacceptable.
Heck, the major plank of the campaign was that people wanted to decide who I may or may not hire to be a nanny or gardener.
There's a large difference when it comes to the nature of falsehoods. Even if we accept that politicians lie, the spreading of hateful falsehoods in order to scapegoat is another type of lie entirely. This is the type of harm libel tries to protect against. It's why I'd not expect members of the Alt Right to accept the idea of 'punishing those who hatefully lie if it causes harm'. Their movements need that ability.
Last edited:
Lies such as Trump is under investigation for some Russian conspiracy theory and he fired the head of the FBI to cover it up? He needs to be impeached?
Then come to find out in the hearing that was all far-left lies published in all of the lefty papers and broadcast on the news?
And now these are the same people who want to decide what is and isn't liable and that they're going to begin charging people for liking Facebook posts?
Lmao. Tyrants.
Oh, yes it is.
We're all about holding the left personally responsible for every tyrannical decision they make that harms regular everyday people for the purpose of forcing their political agenda that's dead in the water.
.... Trump isn't under investigation for Russian collusion. The people who he first surrounded himself are. He's the one who promoted shaddy people to sit at his right hand while he spread harmful lies about his fellow citizens.
But this is neither here nor there. I'll agree that all political spectrums have a 'tyranny' about them, especially when viewed from certain angles. I think that this is actually unavoidable, since a society is going to be built on compromises that don't withstand a solid a priori critique.
This is separate from the issue of whether 'liking' a post will essentially help publish that post to your friends' feeds.
But this is neither here nor there. I'll agree that all political spectrums have a 'tyranny' about them, especially when viewed from certain angles. I think that this is actually unavoidable, since a society is going to be built on compromises that don't withstand a solid a priori critique.
This is separate from the issue of whether 'liking' a post will essentially help publish that post to your friends' feeds.
The Democrats make it up as they go along.
As I said, if you want to live in a world where you can be charged for liking a Facebook post then be prepared to take personal responsibility for that decision and any unintended consequences.
It's pointless to argue with you based on what would be best for society, or what is fair and reasonable because you don't care. You support this for political reasons, so whatever. There's really nothing else to be said.
As I said, if you want to live in a world where you can be charged for liking a Facebook post then be prepared to take personal responsibility for that decision and any unintended consequences.
It's pointless to argue with you based on what would be best for society, or what is fair and reasonable because you don't care. You support this for political reasons, so whatever. There's really nothing else to be said.
Haha, no. To understand is not to endorse. I said I understood how the common law works on this.
But, you're still not using accurate language.
You cannot be 'charged' for 'liking a Facebook post'. Libel is a tort. And the tort isn't for 'liking a Facebook post', it's for spreading harmful lies that cause provable damages.
You need to figure out what you're arguing, whether 'liking' a post is actually disseminating something for your friends to see, or not. Mechanistically, that's what it is. The algorithm is very easy to deduce; nearly everyone understands that's what's happening. A reasonable person can be expected to understand that. And a reasonable person is expected to know that you're liable for damages if you spread harmful lies.
But, you're still not using accurate language.
You cannot be 'charged' for 'liking a Facebook post'. Libel is a tort. And the tort isn't for 'liking a Facebook post', it's for spreading harmful lies that cause provable damages.
You need to figure out what you're arguing, whether 'liking' a post is actually disseminating something for your friends to see, or not. Mechanistically, that's what it is. The algorithm is very easy to deduce; nearly everyone understands that's what's happening. A reasonable person can be expected to understand that. And a reasonable person is expected to know that you're liable for damages if you spread harmful lies.
Perfection
The Great Head.
True, but it's still treating it as illegal behavior.
I tend to favor relatively narrow libel laws. In my mind, outlawing ideas doesn't eliminate them, it gives them dark allure.
Whatever. It's semantics.
I understand how it works and everyone knows what I meant including yourself, which is why you said I didn't use accurate language. There's no point making this into a side-argument.
And if this isn't something you endorse why drag this conversation out? Lets both agree that the judge's decision isn't a good thing, was stupid, and leave it at that.
Yeah, I'm sure everyone's grandmother is aware that when she likes that Facebook article about "Pee Pee Gate," or "Proof That Micheal Obama is a Tranny" she realizes that she just incriminated herself and is subject to a lawsuit /sarc. Surely this is the sort of legal precedent that our society needs, but heck as long as it can be used to to silence your political opponents it's worth it to drag granny and any other unsuspecting average Joe into a lawsuit. How noble.
I assume you'll be taking some personal responsibility when this effects you, since the same people supporting this have taken responsibility for running a horrible candidate on a bad platform and losing the election:
Last edited:
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
The fact that you don't quote a message doesn't change that you push the thread back to the top.
To stick with the example of the forums, I can dig up an old thread where there's some hefty stuff that is against the rules which has been missed for some reason, respond to one of the posts that are not against the rules, and there we go - nothing the mods could do against it (well, unless they bend the rules after they have figured out that that's why I'm digging up old posts). The thread would get closed because of a necro, there might or might not be infractions issued to the people who violated the rules in that thread (depending on how the mod in question handles content that has been inactive for ages), but neither of that would stop the fact that those posts have been made visible again, and nothing I have done was against the forum rules. Perfect troll job - maybe I'll do it some day.
That is for all intents and purposes me "republishing" the information as a byproduct of commenting on something in the same thread. (Which I'm aware isn't quite the same as liking something on facebook, don't forget this is still part of the "Where does it stop?"-question.)
Exactly. This is probably the best argument against anti-libel/slander laws as well as hate speech laws. Outlawing or attaching civil penalties to certain types of speech, however justified it might be, is almost always going to have the opposite effect than the one intended (which is to dissuade people from engaging in or believing in such speech).
With the caveat that all jurisdictions are different, defamatory republication can take place at a number of levels. If 'publication' is defined by the receipt of the communication (and it is not in all places, notably I think the US looks at point of origin), then there is potential liability on the part of a) the original author, b) the publisher who disseminates the author's work, c) the company which provides a platform where the dissemination takes place, and d) users of that platform which cause the dissemination of the material further still. Which of those people one decides to sue is essentially a tactical matter - are you going to sue a facebook user who has caused nominal damage to your reputation by exposing perhaps one or two other people to the defamatory material (and there'd be substantial evidentiary hurdles with that, I'd imagine), or are you going to sue the publisher (e.g. the online news website) which has caused substantial damage by exposing thousands or millions of people to the defamatory material? If 'liking' a facebook post naturally brings it to the attention of others, then it's undoubtedly a republication, but the circumstances in which the damage would be anything other than nominal seem pretty limited. It's the same as communicating defamatory material that you read in the newspaper to someone in a private conversation - it's undoubtedly capable of being defamation (subject to certain qualifications, of course), it's just that, other than in exceptional circumstances (e.g. telling a prospective employer of the person you're defaming), it makes no tactical sense to focus on the individual rather than the newspaper from where they got the information in the first place.
Crucially, I also think it misses the point to consider 'liking' just in terms of republication, when it actually amounts to an original communication in itself. Not only does sharing the original material with others amount to a republication of that original material, a 'like' also provides some additional, potential defamatory content, in the same way that saying "I endorse this" would. This is most obvious in the case of public figures with large social media followings - if they were to 'like' something, they are not simply neutrally conveying the original defamation to a wider audience, but are effectively adding the weight of their own credibility to the defamatory material.
It's worth pointing out that the most obvious point of difference between the tort of defamation that is mostly being talked about in this thread, and the Swiss case mentioned in the OP, is that the latter appears to concern criminal defamation, and a 'fine'. The gist of tort is damage, which by its nature leads to a compensatory, not punitive, sanction. Criminal defamation is a whole different ball game from tortious defamation.
Crucially, I also think it misses the point to consider 'liking' just in terms of republication, when it actually amounts to an original communication in itself. Not only does sharing the original material with others amount to a republication of that original material, a 'like' also provides some additional, potential defamatory content, in the same way that saying "I endorse this" would. This is most obvious in the case of public figures with large social media followings - if they were to 'like' something, they are not simply neutrally conveying the original defamation to a wider audience, but are effectively adding the weight of their own credibility to the defamatory material.
It's worth pointing out that the most obvious point of difference between the tort of defamation that is mostly being talked about in this thread, and the Swiss case mentioned in the OP, is that the latter appears to concern criminal defamation, and a 'fine'. The gist of tort is damage, which by its nature leads to a compensatory, not punitive, sanction. Criminal defamation is a whole different ball game from tortious defamation.
That has nothing to do with what I said.
What part of "Share This Page" has nothing to do with sharing this page in some social media sense? Or don't you see the Facebook and Twitter icons below that?
Presumably, sharing some CFC page on social media could lead people to come and have a look... and they'll see the comments, and the "likes."
Perfection
The Great Head.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/off-topic-specific-rules.565205/
It does fail the "Above all Don't be a jerk." Rule
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Nah, it doesn't.
But if we disagree on that, just make it an example where I'm just responding to some posts from a week ago or so that I found interesting, and some of those threads have material in them that's against the rules. I would still be "republishing" the content in the wider meaning of the word, purely as a byproduct of commenting on something else in that thread.
Similar threads
- Sticky
