An Idea for Parameters for Free Speech on the Forum
Posted: March 19th, 2023, 1:18 pm
I have a suggestion.
This is kind of a 'free speech' forum. We can talk about things that might get censored by this ridiculous cancel culture that has sprung up in recent years.
On the other hand, posters accusing others of being pedophiles, etc. has been an issue.
How about this be the standard for free speech-- anything that could get the speaker sued for damages in a US court of law (since Winston was raised in the US, and a sizeable number of posters seem to be from the US) could be banned, unless you have solid evidence that could get you exonerated in a court of law.
If US law is too narrow, we could go for Anglo-law, since various academic studies rate that as the highest system for predictability and for strong rule of law.
So, for example, if you accuse someone of some kind of sexual perversion, stealing, etc. and you can't prevent evidence. The forum could set the standard to 1980's law, so accusing someone of something vile like sleeping with the same sex could fall into this category, too. (Nowadays, some people don't even think it's a slander to accuse another of gay sex.)
Normally for tort law, like if you accuse someone of doing something bad or having a terrible disease or anything that holds them up for public derision, they may have to show specifically what their financial damages is. If you accuse a woman of losing her virginity, you don't have to prove she was held up to public derision. It's automatically assumed under common law.
The rationale for this is court cases. I don't know if law evolved to exempt online forum providers from being responsible for hosting slanderous comments. But I do know that the owner of a forum probably would not like legal discovery-- where @Winston might have to respond to a court order to produce electronic content to give to the plaintiff and defense in a civil case or to prosecutor and defense in a criminal case. So anything posted where one poster might have strong grounds to sue another and win could be banned.
Posters would get treated like non-public figures for these purposes.
Also, if someone has been convicted of a crime, that would be exempt. If a poster admits that he has slept with ladyboys, and other people rightly comment how gay that is, that's normal. He just admitted to doing something homosexual. But accusing someone else of asking other dudes for genital pictures through PMs or of having sex with kids or rape or murder, etc. could be considered against the rules.
It's Winston's forum and he can have whatever rules he wants. I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.
This is kind of a 'free speech' forum. We can talk about things that might get censored by this ridiculous cancel culture that has sprung up in recent years.
On the other hand, posters accusing others of being pedophiles, etc. has been an issue.
How about this be the standard for free speech-- anything that could get the speaker sued for damages in a US court of law (since Winston was raised in the US, and a sizeable number of posters seem to be from the US) could be banned, unless you have solid evidence that could get you exonerated in a court of law.
If US law is too narrow, we could go for Anglo-law, since various academic studies rate that as the highest system for predictability and for strong rule of law.
So, for example, if you accuse someone of some kind of sexual perversion, stealing, etc. and you can't prevent evidence. The forum could set the standard to 1980's law, so accusing someone of something vile like sleeping with the same sex could fall into this category, too. (Nowadays, some people don't even think it's a slander to accuse another of gay sex.)
Normally for tort law, like if you accuse someone of doing something bad or having a terrible disease or anything that holds them up for public derision, they may have to show specifically what their financial damages is. If you accuse a woman of losing her virginity, you don't have to prove she was held up to public derision. It's automatically assumed under common law.
The rationale for this is court cases. I don't know if law evolved to exempt online forum providers from being responsible for hosting slanderous comments. But I do know that the owner of a forum probably would not like legal discovery-- where @Winston might have to respond to a court order to produce electronic content to give to the plaintiff and defense in a civil case or to prosecutor and defense in a criminal case. So anything posted where one poster might have strong grounds to sue another and win could be banned.
Posters would get treated like non-public figures for these purposes.
Also, if someone has been convicted of a crime, that would be exempt. If a poster admits that he has slept with ladyboys, and other people rightly comment how gay that is, that's normal. He just admitted to doing something homosexual. But accusing someone else of asking other dudes for genital pictures through PMs or of having sex with kids or rape or murder, etc. could be considered against the rules.
It's Winston's forum and he can have whatever rules he wants. I just thought I'd throw the idea out there.