This is the upside to Elon Musk's "Total Free Speech" website. As the site isn't censoring offensive speech, the idiots who don't do it anonymously are starting to face real consequences for their actions. Cant cure stupid. But you can sue it.
going o/t here - Some solicitors have a 'no win no fee' system. For example in a dispute over land ownership. If you don't win you don't have to pay the solicitor representing you but would you have to pay the legal fees of the other party who would have 'won' ?
The lawyer takes out insurance. If you lose the insurance pays it and the lawyer pays the excess. if you win then on top of the fees that the lawyer takes they also take the cost of the insurance premium from your winnings
That used to happen, but insurers stopped underwriting these cases, at least on a mass basis, after organisations like The Accident Group and Life Repair Group, kept putting in frivolous personal injury claims, knowing that they carried zero risk. The insurers withdrawing was what caused both organisations to go bankrupt.
He's a nob of the first water. Wish he'd tell the world I was a paedophile..... Edit: Just in case his lawyers are reading my statement I was using the term 'nob' to refer to his character which is like a handle that opens a door to new worlds of knowledge....
This is exactly why I maintain its important to keep free speech. You get to see people for who they really are, wide open, and they can't claim to have a witch hunt against them. Perfect application of the law here. Hope he loses his appeals.
Aren't forum admin and moderators legally required to remove illegal posts such as defamatory ones and racist/sexist ones as opposed to simply locking them?
It's unlikely to be a crime if they're simply defamatory, however they might be opening themselves up to civil action by continuing to host it.
There are several laws which technically make hosting offensive content illegal. Not just racist comments. Foul and abusive language, harassment, indecency, defamation, hate speech. All manner of things. There’s obviously a line, which we would deal with. I’m sure in many cases though, applying judgment is probably considered reasonable. If a Bobby ever gets in touch and asks us to delete something like, obviously I would.
I was wondering whether it did, just not on such a large scale. As obviously insuring cases which have a high likelihood of losing is very quickly going to become unprofitable for the insurer!
I used to think that, but Popper's Tolerance Paradox convinced me otherwise. "If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people."