Supreme Court allows White House to fight social media misinformation::Justices said the Biden Administration could continue to pressure social media firms over misleading content while a lawsuit progresses.

  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Demonstrably false foreign propaganda? Lies about the time, place, and results of elections? Medical advice that can be lethal if followed?

    • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget revenge porn, which was already illegal but gets Republicans really mad when it’s of Hunter Biden but also taken down.

      • jasory
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not “revenge porn” if the images have already been leaked. Just like it’s not espionage to report on information already leaked.

        • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Is that true with revenge porn? Because with, for example, child porn, it’s not like they’re only going after the people making it but also the people distributing it.

          Another, more analogous example: Most of those old celebrity leaks (fappening) are illegal content to host/distribute, which is why sites wouldn’t/couldn’t allow it even if it would drive up user traffic. (Afaik)

          • jasory
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            My statement had to do with classifying already widely distributed material as “revenge porn”.

            If you are the original distributor, then you are criminally liable (just like with leaking secrets). If you redistribute to extort money or the actual content is illegal ( as is the case with CSAM, which several of the celebrity leaks allegedly were), then you are also criminally liable.

            It is not a crime to merely redistribute already published images, it is however possibly a copyright violation. It would be different if all the individuals were either individually or collectively trying to extort Hunter Biden, but since it was simply image sharing it is subject to the same laws as sharing any other pornographic image of an adult.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You can say the same thing about any government power. Or about government just existing. Or about human beings just existing.

        Denying people the opportunity to act in bad faith isn’t a strategy, not even a bad one.