possible legislative threat

Discuss the talk-polywell site itself, including appearance, policies, and help-wanted requests from the administrators.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

hanelyp
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

possible legislative threat

Postby hanelyp » Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:31 am

Are the server or administrators of this site in California?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1424
This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

PolyGirl
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: possible legislative threat

Postby PolyGirl » Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:57 am

Send a message to Joe at "admin@talk-polywell.org. ". In regards to this problem.

Regards
Polygirl
The more I know, the less I know.

PolyGirl
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:16 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: possible legislative threat

Postby PolyGirl » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:54 am

If the CA government took someone to court over this legislation. Then the plaintiffs would use the first amendment to defend themselves.


  1. In New York Times v Sullivan (1964)
  2. Hustler Magazine v Falwell (1988)
  3. Rickert v Washington, (2007)
  4. United States v Alvarez (2012)

The First Amendment protects free speech in general, but not necessarily when it is obscene or threatening.

"Essentially, the government does not get to decide what is true or not true. Libel laws stand as the only counterpoint to free speech. To be considered libel, the offending speech must be published, untrue, harmful to your reputation, and in the case of public figures, also created with malice or reckless disregard for the truth. Creators and publishers of content can be sued for libel, but not distributors, e.g. a social media platform. Libel lawsuits are difficult to win, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff." [1]

I will let you decide, what I think of this law. :D

Regards
Polygirl
[1] americanlibrariesmagazine
The more I know, the less I know.

hanelyp
Posts: 2237
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: possible legislative threat

Postby hanelyp » Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:59 am

Since the original post, the bill has morphed twice, first to a mostly harmless form, then to the form of a study committee on the issue, with much harder to predict long term fallout, passed the legislature, and been vetoed. It may return in future legislative sessions in some form, as the veto was for the specific form, and a new and possibly far worse governor will be elected soon.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.


Return to “Administration”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests