Slashdot Mirror
Man Fined $4,000 For 'Liking' Defamatory Posts on Facebook (cnn.com)
In what appears to be a first, a court in Switzerland has fined a man the equivalent of over $4,000 just for clicking the "like" button on what a judge said were defamatory Facebook comments. From a report: The court in Zurich found that the man indirectly endorsed and further distributed the comments by using the ubiquitous Facebook "like" button. The man, who was not named in the court's statement, "liked" several posts written by a third party that accused an animal rights activist of antisemitism, racism and fascism. In court, the man was not able to prove that the claims were accurate or could reasonably be held to be true. "The defendant clearly endorsed the unseemly content and made it his own," a statement from the court said. The court fined the man a total of 4,000 Swiss francs ($4,100). He has the right to appeal his sentence. Facebook said the case had "no direct link" to the company, and a spokesperson declined to comment.
Everyone who uses Facebook should be fined $4000.
This is why Trump and REAL Americans want absolutely nothing to do with you Eurotrash.
#covfefe
Who will think of the bots this will dramatically impact?
When Russian bots dream, they dream of oil burning sheep.
Think on them, before you fine too much.
Vast herds of Russian bots might go hungry, unable to pay their fines.
Will you help them?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
... for a court to be putting into a "like" button.
For one thing, does "liking" using the button imply endorsement? Does "like" mean what they think it means? Or was the person's intention? And what if it was inadvertent clicking?
What if the button was called "interesting..." instead?
You would think that a court would restrain itself and hesitate to rule, given so many possibilities of meaning and ambiguities here...
Ok, is Switzerland, so maybe they have different laws from what I’m used to. But in the civilized world, we value free speech. The right to free speech often translates into the right to be a total asshole, but that’s the price we pay to ensure that well-meaning people don’t have their rights stomped on by a fascist government.
Now, speech can be INVOLVED in criminal behavior. For instance, libel and slander. These come down not to the speech but the consequences of the speech. You can “defame” a fictional character all you want, and you can say really asshole things about non-specific people.
In this specific case there’s this “third party” who said defamatory things about an animal rights activist — who are THEY? Why aren’t we hearing more about this third party? Why aren’t they in trouble? Why is some moron with a like button fined $4000 when the original defamer is left unscathed?
I’m really liberal, but this sounds like some of that SJW shit the conservatives are always going on about.
Isn't the Slashdot moderation system based on likes? If moderators can get sued for promoting a post, Slashdot isn't long for the Internet.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
Thoughtcrime!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I was about to start throwing my weight around in here, moderating up/down, but then I realised I could face legal consequences for endorsing anyones views. :-/
Jeez, dude. Forget about RTFA. How about RTFS: Read The Fucking SUMMARY?
The court in Zurich found that the man indirectly endorsed and further distributed the comments
Personally, I like the ruling. Slander is slander. Spreading false bullshit should be a punishable civil offense in the US, too.
I don't respond to AC's.
"Free speech" does not protect things like defamation of character, slander, libel, or inciting violence.
In the United States, free speech does not protect defamation, whether that defamation is slander or libel (two types of defamation).
Inciting violence is actually somewhat protected so long as it is not actually likely to occur. The government can ban "incitement to imminent lawless action that is likely to occur" without violating the First Amendment, at least under 1969 Supreme Court precedent that is good law today.
However, there are a LOT of ins and outs to the law of free speech in the United States. It would take a few hundred pages to start writing it up, because there are a large number of interrelated rules that have evolved in different legal cases over the last century.
You should obviously consult an attorney if you are in a position where any of this matters seriously to your situation.
Real lawyers write in C++
And this, boys and girls, is what you get when you don't have a constitution that guarantees free speech. The lefties in the US are trying for the same thing by equating speech they don't like to assault and then rioting http://www.foxnews.com/politic... and beating people in the head with bike locks to shut down speech they disagree with. http://www.nbclosangeles.com/n... Every fascist leftie, piss ant bureaucrat and judge becomes their own little dictator who can shit on you from on high. The only thing stopping this crap in the US is our constitution and enforcement of the rule of law (which apparently doesn't happen in Berkeley, CA...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
From the summary (and the article) I interpreted the issue is a person accused somebody else of being racist without proof. So the issue wasn't someone expressing an unpopular opinion and being branded a racist by the courts for it, but a person accusing someone else of being racist. So the opposite of what the OP was complaining about.
That said in no way do I feel this fine was just or reasonable.
It's turtles all the way down.
Bill and Hillary Clinton enriched themselves through shady deals with Russian oligarchs and Russian government, quite possibly using her power as then SecState to enable the deal while she was pocketing millions.
Even the NY Times described it thusly: "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal"
"Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation's donors."
"Uranium investors' efforts to buy mining assets in Kazakhstan and the United States led to a takeover bid by a Russian state-owned energy company. The investors gave millions to the Clinton Foundation over the same period, while Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's office was involved with approving the Russian bid.
SEPTEMBER 2005 Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier, wins a major uranium deal in Kazakhstan for his company, UrAsia, days after visiting the country with former President Bill Clinton.
2006 Mr. Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation.
JUNE 2008 Negotations begin for an investment in Uranium One by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom.
2008-2010 Uranium One and former UrAsia investors make $8.65 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One investors stand to profit on a Rosatom deal.
2010-2011 Investors give millions more in donations to the Clinton Foundation.
JUNE 2010 Rosatom seeks majority ownership of Uranium One, pending approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, of which the State Department is a member.
JUNE 29, 2010 Bill Clinton is paid $500,000 for a speech in Moscow by a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that assigned a buy rating to Uranium One stock.
OCTOBER 2010 Rosatom's majority ownership approved by Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.