Is it time to re-think free speech?

[Mina]

we have slander and libel laws.

We do indeed. But as they currently stand, they pose two obstacles to anyone thinking of suing for those things (at least anyone with modest means):

(1) Generally speaking, people bear the cost of their own litigation, even if they win.

(2) It can be very hard to prove what your actual damages are in a slander or libel situation, and courts are likely to decide on very low numbers in cases where the plaintiff isn't wealthy (since, in theory, any loss of earning power from being defamed has a low dollar figure, if your earning power was low to begin with).

Because of those two things, people can be in a situation where even if they win the lawsuit, they wind up worse off -- like spending a hundred thousand dollars to litigate, and only getting a few thousand dollars of damages when they win.

For the wealthy, that's a smaller issue, since they can afford even the most ridiculous of nuisance suits merely to inconvenience and impoverish their adversaries (e.g., Deven Nunes suing Twitter and a Twitter account holder over a satirical account purporting to be run by Nunes's cow). But for poorer people, such lawsuits are generally not a practical possibility, since they can't afford the legal expenses.

The reforms I'm talking about would address both prongs of that problem. It would allow those who are successful to recover reasonable legal expenses, in addition to actual damages, if they win, so that even poor people could sue with a contingency arrangement with the lawyers. And it would make it so that libeling or slandering someone, even someone with very modest earning potential, had a fixed minimum price tag associated with it, so that poorer people could hit back hard enough to create an incentive not to prey on them that way.

 

[Monad Portal]

We do indeed. But as they currently stand, they pose two obstacles to anyone thinking of suing for those things (at least anyone with modest means):

(1) Generally speaking, people bear the cost of their own litigation, even if they win.

(2) It can be very hard to prove what your actual damages are in a slander or libel situation, and courts are likely to decide on very low numbers in cases where the plaintiff isn't wealthy (since, in theory, any loss of earning power from being defamed has a low dollar figure, if your earning power was low to begin with).

Because of those two things, people can be in a situation where even if they win the lawsuit, they wind up worse off -- like spending a hundred thousand dollars to litigate, and only getting a few thousand dollars of damages when they win.

For the wealthy, that's a smaller issue, since they can afford even the most ridiculous of nuisance suits merely to inconvenience and impoverish their adversaries (e.g., Deven Nunes suing Twitter and a Twitter account holder over a satirical account purporting to be run by Nunes's cow). But for poorer people, such lawsuits are generally not a practical possibility, since they can't afford the legal expenses.

The reforms I'm talking about would address both prongs of that problem. It would allow those who are successful to recover reasonable legal expenses, in addition to actual damages, if they win, so that even poor people could sue with a contingency arrangement with the lawyers. And it would make it so that libeling or slandering someone, even someone with very modest earning potential, had a fixed minimum price tag associated with it, so that poorer people could hit back hard enough to create an incentive not to prey on them that way.

legal fees often get included.

not groundbreaking.

plus you're just an idiot.

 

[FreeSpeech1789]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

Yes we should censor the largest proliferators of disinformation in human history IE the left, start with banning the NYTs, CNN, MSNBC, etc, basically the entirety of the MSM and big tech that act as direct ministries of propaganda for the DNC and unelected permanent administrative state.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Sure thing. It's only "Brandon fans" who dislike violent extremist groups putting out all kinds of hate & inspiring despicable acts that harm our society as a whole.
.

don't be silly.....its only the Brandon fans who are DOING it......

 

[Monad Portal]

Can you cite the misinformation I have spread? Or the times I have pretended that they're the same as the guy spreading racism?

you spend most of your time just denying things known to be true.

 

[FreeSpeech1789]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

And who will be the arbiter of what constitutes conspiracy theory and disinformation on your ministry of truth?

 

[Mina]

legal fees often get included.

The problem is uncertainty. Even if you're certain you can win a defamation case, if you aren't certain the damages awarded will be greater than the litigation costs, and you don't have the means to absorb a hit like that, you won't sue. When we don't have a minimum statutory damages amount, and we don't have a requirement that reasonable litigation costs be included in the award, litigating is just going to be too risky for someone without means. The reforms I'm talking about would make the threshold question only be whether or not you think you'll win. If you're confident you'll win, then you know you'll come out ahead by litigating, rather than you having to worry about whether the judge will award litigation costs (which is contrary to standard practice of each party bearing its own costs), and whether you'll be able to prove sufficient actual damages to make it worthwhile.

 

[Monad Portal]

Well, I don't think the telegraph is really comparable to the internet.

If you don't think the internet has changed us radically in just a couple of decades, this thread probably has no interest for you. I think it has the potential to make things very dystopian, very quickly.

only if you're allowed to censor it.

very few things should be disallowed.

no direct calls to violence.

no doxxing.

no snuff films or kiddie porn

that's about it.

political speech you don't like is definitely allowed. sorry lefties.

you will never provide a list. because you want political censorship and are afraid to say it. so you will stay vague yet accusatory.

 

[Mina]

legal fees often get included.

The problem is uncertainty. Even if you're certain you can win a defamation case, if you aren't certain the damages awarded will be greater than the litigation costs, and you don't have the means to absorb a hit like that, you won't sue. When we don't have a minimum statutory damages amount, and we don't have a requirement that reasonable litigation costs be included in the award, litigating is just going to be too risky for someone without means. The reforms I'm talking about would make the threshold question only be whether or not you think you'll win. If you're confident you'll win, then you know you'll come out ahead by litigating, rather than you having to worry about whether the judge will award litigation costs (which is contrary to standard practice of each party bearing its own costs), and whether you'll be able to prove sufficient actual damages to make it worthwhile.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

Require all citizens to pass the Naturalization exam before they are allowed to access the full Internet and vote.

 

[Monad Portal]

The problem is uncertainty. Even if you're certain you can win a defamation case, if you aren't certain the damages awarded will be greater than the litigation costs, and you don't have the means to absorb a hit like that, you won't sue. When we don't have a minimum statutory damages amount, and we don't have a requirement that reasonable litigation costs be included in the award, litigating is just going to be too risky for someone without means. The reforms I'm talking about would make the threshold question only be whether or not you think you'll win. If you're confident you'll win, then you know you'll come out ahead by litigating, rather than you having to worry about whether the judge will award litigation costs (which is contrary to standard practice of each party bearing its own costs), and whether you'll be able to prove sufficient actual damages to make it worthwhile.

you want to balloon nuisance litigation from blue-haired gender fluid woke malcontents.

no thank you.

you get free speech in return. now get online and make your case.

 

[Monad Portal]

Require all citizens to pass the Naturalization exam before they are allowed to access the full Internet and vote.

no voting over the internet.

too amenable to fraud.

paper ballot only. offline only.

 

[FreeSpeech1789]

It's weird to even type that. It's one of our most sacred principles.

But the original arguments for it & the marketplace of ideas had at its foundation the idea of a mature, educated populace. The theory was that by allowing all speech, the truth would filter everything else out & rise to the top.

That's not happening. I don't think it's really disputable that allowing ALL speech - especially in the internet age, which the founders could not have foreseen - is hurting us as a population, as a society & as a planet. Belief in lies and conspiracy is becoming widespread and ingrained.

If possible, try not to knee-jerk this one. I'm interested in other thoughts on it. It just isn't working as intended.

Trump colluded with Russia, the Hunter laptop is Russian disinformation, 15 days to slow the spread, no gain of function research at Wuhan, the coronavirus came from bat soup, we aren't teaching CRT to children, oh we are but it's a good thing and if you oppose it you're a white supremacist, we aren't teaching radical gender theory to children, oh we are but it's a good thing and if you oppose it you're a homophobic/transphobic bigot, we aren't targeting concerned parents with the intelligence agencies using anti-terrorist legislation, we don't support open borders, well we do but it's a good thing anyone who opposed it is a white supremacist, Kavanaugh is a gang rapist, twitter isn't censoring conservatives, oh God Elon wants to buy twitter how are we going to censor conservatives?

I'll think of more those are just off the top of my head.

 

[Monad Portal]

basically mina wants a "sue this creator" button on every youtube channel, facebook page, and tinder profile.

censorship through bot generated legal harrassment.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

no voting over the internet.

too amenable to fraud.

paper ballot only. offline only.

Anyone who runs for national office has to be a military veteran.

 

[Monad Portal]

Anyone who runs for national office has to be a military veteran.

now i know you're not a serious person....

 

[Dutch Uncle]

now i know you're not a serious person....

You also think I'm an agent of the Jewish Global Conspiracy soooo....

 

[Mina]

you want to balloon nuisance litigation from blue-haired gender fluid woke malcontents.

Currently, we already get a lot of nuisance litigation, but it comes rom (mostly right wing) wealthy people, who can afford to lose cases just to try to chill free speech by forcing their critics to spend time and money defending. Deven Nunes and Donald Trump are two leading practitioners of that. What I'm talking about is leveling the playing field, so that nuisance litigants like that can't impoverish their critics with litigation costs, and so that those who have genuinely been harmed by defamation can be confident they'll come out ahead if they bring a suit.

 

[Monad Portal]

Currently, we already get a lot of nuisance litigation, but it comes rom (mostly right wing) wealthy people, who can afford to lose cases just to try to chill free speech by forcing their critics to spend time and money defending. Deven Nunes and Donald Trump are two leading practitioners of that. What I'm talking about is leveling the playing field, so that nuisance litigants like that can't impoverish their critics with litigation costs, and so that those who have genuinely been harmed by defamation can be confident they'll come out ahead if they bring a suit.

yes. you want publicly subsidized nuisance litigation.

first you have to set the rules. you want to include politics, or information you simply disagree with.

 

[Monad Portal]

You also think I'm an agent of the Jewish Global Conspiracy soooo....

i keep telling you it's not jewish particularly.

you only have your idiotic "all criticism of the establishment is anti-semitism" frame that you learned at dumb spook school.