Fake it till you make it – a take on fake users

[frm]

If people want to make up their own definitions of Hate Speech that's up to them, but for the purpose of this discussion, it was mentioned as a legal term and as such it has nothing to to with someone being offended by pronoun or a meme of a black person. Nobody would be prosecuted for those as the term (in legal definition) generally refers to inciting violence due to actual hatred. That is of course open to interpretation but that interpretation must follow legal prosecutorial guidelines.

You don't seem to see where America is headed, state by state, and eventually federally, if the minority are louder and more intimidating to scare the majority.

California “Hate Crime” Laws, Penalties & Defenses

https://youtu.be/7WvCo8vQkIY?list=PLWMyGtcnDIhHICzbXFVX1fbw7t-G4e0l0 California's hate crime laws are codified in Penal Code Sections 422.55, 422.6, 422.7, and 422.75 PC. These statutes make it a criminal offense for a person to commit a hate crime and also impose enhanced penalties when a...

www.shouselaw.com

Penal Code 422.55 PC is the California statute that defines a hate crime as a criminal act committed because of the victim’s actual or perceived:

• disability,
• gender,
• nationality,
• race or ethnicity,
• religion,
• sexual orientation, or
• association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

Penal Code 422.6 PC is the California law that makes it a stand-alone crime for a person to commit a hate crime.

Penal Code 422.7 PC is the law that imposes an additional penalty on an accused whenever:

1. he/she is convicted of a misdemeanor, and
2. that misdemeanor is also proven to be a hate crime.

Technically, with the hate speech law, you could be screaming loud vulgarities, which is a public nuisance (Public Nuisance Laws – Penal Code 372, 373a PC) or drunk and disorderly (Drunk in Public Laws – California Penal Code 647(f)), both of which are misdemeanor criminal act offenses. You could misgender someone (hate crime) while drunk (misdemeanor) and have 2 charges instead of 1.

Right now, I don't see it being enforced that way, but it doesn't mean it can't. They moved the goalpost so that it is possible, though.

The first step would be to probably socially cancel the person, because making them lose their job over a 5-second recording shown to their workplace is a lot worse than 2 misdemeanors and a fine, which they could get on top of it nonetheless.

 

[AWS]

Damages caused by speech (libel, slander, inciting riots or violence, etc.) are not protected by the 1st Amendment

Not 100% accurate. Back in the 80's Jerry Falwell filed a suit against Larry Flint and Hustler magazine claiming libel and damage to his reputation. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled while what was printed and inferred was tasteless it didn't violate law and was protected by the 1ST amendment.

So libel and slander are protected as long as no one gets physically hurt.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Not 100% accurate. Back in the 80's Jerry Falwell filed a suit against Larry Flint and Hustler magazine claiming libel and damage to his reputation. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled while what was printed and inferred was tasteless it didn't violate law and was protected by the 2ND amendment.

So libel and slander are protected as long as no one gets physically hurt.

This makes no sense if the ruling was that there was no libel and damage hence it was legal anyway. And nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Forsaken]

Not 100% accurate. Back in the 80's Jerry Falwell filed a suit against Larry Flint and Hustler magazine claiming libel and damage to his reputation. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled while what was printed and inferred was tasteless it didn't violate law and was protected by the 2ND amendment.

So libel and slander are protected as long as no one gets physically hurt.

It's because it was parody, and included several disclaimers, and libel does not cover parody (generally has to be made as a statement or opinion presented as fact). Libel does not require it to just do emotional harm, as normally it also succeeds normally because it only affects people emotionally or socially.

Also, crazy to see where this thread has gone. If certain people put the effort in to their own communities, they wouldn't even need fake users.

 

[AWS]

This makes no sense if the ruling was that there was no libel and damage hence it was legal anyway. And nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

My mistake. Big fingers caused typo. Should be 1ST ammendment.

 

[Mr Lucky]

My mistake. Big fingers caused typo. Should be 1ST ammendment.

But that is still not relevant to the case. If there was no libel according to the judge then there is no reason to say that libel was protected.

The 1st amendment is not a valid defence if actual defamatory and damaging libel is committed. Same with copyright infringements and hate speech when it includes incitement to lawless action.

 

[AWS]

But that is still not relevant to the case. If there was no libel according to the judge then there is no reason to say that libel was protected.

The 1st amendment is not a valid defence if actual defamatory and damaging libel is committed. Same with copyright infringements and hate speech when it includes incitement to lawless action.

Read the court docs. Defense was Larry Flints 1ST amendment right to free speech was being infringed upon. A lower court actually ruled in favor of Falwell hence why it wound up at the Supreme Court.

 

[Mr Lucky]

Defense was Larry Flints 1ST amendment right to free speech was being infringed upon.

Exactly.

It would have been an invalid defence had the judge upheld the libel.

 

[Cavaliertalk]

Exactly.

It would have been an invalid defence had the judge upheld the libel.

Yep. Working journalist here (who's covered the internet with a focus on societal impacts such as digital rights, speech, etc issues for 30+ years). The Flint case absolutely did not conclude that libel and slander are generally OK in the US. Context was key there. Also: always useful to remind that US law is ... US law. It's not international law. The First Amendment is only a US consideration. Speech rights in the EU and UK, for example, do not depend on the US First Amendment. Also: just saying, but some of us set up forums years to decades ago and these considerations were around back then, too. If anything, lack of case law made the legal environment and defamation/libel/slander issues pertinent to running a forum, a lot more uncertain in the 90s into the early noughts (and stressful, if a forum owner was paying attention to that uncertainty.

To bring discussion back to where it started -- if a forum owner posted something libellous/slanderous under a fake account they created, they'd be responsible for it, potentially liable under relevant laws, and ... found out.

 

[Mr Lucky]

they'd be responsible for it, potentially liable under relevant laws, and ... found out.

So two things here:

1 Libel is not protected under freedom of speech/expression in any country which has such laws.

2 If there is any libel (or for that matter copyright infringement or illegal hate speech /incitement) the forum owner is the one to be prosecuted assuming it was a fake account they created. If they argue that the fake account was some other person they'd be required to prove that. In fact if a real account had posted it, the owner could be subpoenaed to divulge otherwise private identifying information. If they cannot do that then they are liable.

 

[frm]

illegal hate speech /incitement

You are still conflating the two with the slash. They are completely different things. I'm not inciting you to make a violent attack on me by calling you a naughty word or mispronouning you. The actions you take based on the words I use, no matter how much they offend you, are of yours alone.

the forum owner is the one to be prosecuted

They could go after a forum owner, but the likely outcome would Section 230 (US) setting precedence in a lower court as the argument would be that you are a platform and operate under most, if not all, the same parameters that social media does.

You could probably even get GPT to draft a pro se argument making the comparison, never even having a court appearance by just filing the argument.

The case would likely be dismissed with prejudice. If not, they can try to take it higher, but it's going to be a big loss for them having to cover your legal fees when they lose again.

 

[Mr Lucky]

illegal hate speech /incitement

You are still conflating the two with the slash. They are completely different things. I'm not inciting you to make a violent attack on me by calling you a naughty word or mispronouning you.

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with conflating illegal hate speech with incitement because once there is incitement then that speech is illegal (whether or not you refer to it as hate speech).

From what I can tell in nearly all jurisdictions (hate) speech is illegal if it incites violence and/or illegal acts such as rioting.

Purely insulting people or mispronouncing them is not illegal as far as I know expect in some jurisdictions and only under certain circumstances such as racial abuse or in employment law.

 

[frm]

There's nothing wrong with conflating illegal hate speech with incitement

You're still conflating it because there is no such thing as illegal hate speech, except in certain jurisdictions that can add a charge, if there is an underlying crime related to that speech, like assault.

Incitement is telling people to act out on words.

Two completely different things.

Sure, you can incite people on "hate speech", but the incitement would be the underlying crime.

But "hate speech" on itself is not incitement because you never called for action with your words.

Again, two separate things.

 

[Suzanne O]

Then have a set of rules that explains that users can't be ferals on a forum.

 

[Suzanne O]

Not 100% accurate. Back in the 80's Jerry Falwell filed a suit against Larry Flint and Hustler magazine claiming libel and damage to his reputation. It went to the Supreme Court and they ruled while what was printed and inferred was tasteless it didn't violate law and was protected by the 1ST amendment.

So libel and slander are protected as long as no one gets physically hurt.

Have to be careful with that because if you defame somebody and they read it you will be in deep strife

 

[Mr Lucky]

Sure, you can incite people on "hate speech", but the incitement would be the underlying crime.

I wouldn't disagree. It's the incitement that makes it illegal under US law because, unless there is an illegal element, hate speech (being a type of speech) is protected by the constitution. The fact there is no legal definition of hate speech is not relevant because it isn't necessary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is probably no definition of love speech either but it happens.

 

[wedgar]

So two things here:

1 …

2 …If they argue that the fake account was some other person they'd be required to prove that. In fact if a real account had posted it, the owner could be subpoenaed to divulge otherwise private identifying information. If they cannot do that then they are liable.

I believe the prosecution would have to prove the forum owner posted that material under a fake account. In the US there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

 

[Mr Lucky]

In the US there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

I believe that is the same in most democratic countries.

I imagine that the biggest relevant difference in the US may be law around the responsibility of the site owner in moderation of UGC.

Can the site owner protect a user from prosecution though, e.g. by ignoring a subpoena? Or by pleading the 5th amendment if they are subpoenaed to disclose details of an account? (Which was actually one they made up).

And again, what if there is defamatory material on the site and it is viewable outside the US, can action be taken by someone in that other country under their laws which could be much stricter re: site owner responsibility for UGC?

 

[frm]

I wouldn't disagree. It's the incitement that makes it illegal under US law because, unless there is an illegal element, hate speech (being a type of speech) is protected by the constitution. The fact there is no legal definition of hate speech is not relevant because it isn't necessary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is probably no definition of love speech either but it happens.

For the third time you added incitement to make "hate speech" illegal. These are two distinctive matters.

I'm going to break it down to you Barney style.

Group A hates Group B and vice-versa.

Group A is protesting the actions of Group B calling them bad words—not incitement.

Group B attacks Group A because they got their feelings hurt. By their own volition, they chose to attack based on naughty words alone. That is assault. Group B is carted off and Group A can continue to spew their "hate", unless it becomes a matter of public safety, and then the crowd is dispersed. But at no time did Group A do anything illegal as they were just exercising their 1st Ammendment rights.

Group A never once said, "Let's stand together and run Bad Word Group B out of here! Give them a beating on the way out too!" Because that is incitement, and incitement is illegal, whether used with hate speech or not. Combining incitement with hate speech can be an additional crime when everything is sorted though.

Jumping from that kindergarten lesson, it's quite entertaining to see a protected class try to make "cisgender White male" a slur, and use it to counter protest, because by their own definition, it's hate speech. If you break it down: cis (gender identity) White (race) male (sexual identity).

While I hate nobody, making that perfectly clear, it's going to be fun to watch this ensue when hate speech laws are finally on the books because they didn't think that far ahead to realize that, they too, are the hateful ones, and might get wrapped up in inciting violence against another protected class, or carted off for their own hate speech. That is, unless you exclude a specific group from the law, but that'd only take things to the Supreme Court.

 

[Suzanne O]

For the third time you added incitement to make "hate speech" illegal. These are two distinctive matters.

I'm going to break it down to you Barney style.

Group A hates Group B and vice-versa.

Group A is protesting the actions of Group B calling them bad words—not incitement.

Group B attacks Group A because they got their feelings hurt. By their own volition, they chose to attack based on naughty words alone. That is assault. Group B is carted off and Group A can continue to spew their "hate", unless it becomes a matter of public safety, and then the crowd is dispersed. But at no time did Group A do anything illegal as they were just exercising their 1st Ammendment rights.

Group A never once said, "Let's stand together and run Bad Word Group B out of here! Give them a beating on the way out too!" Because that is incitement, and incitement is illegal, whether used with hate speech or not. Combining incitement with hate speech can be an additional crime when everything is sorted though.

Jumping from that kindergarten lesson, it's quite entertaining to see a protected class try to make "cisgender White male" a slur, and use it to counter protest, because by their own definition, it's hate speech. If you break it down: cis (gender identity) White (race) male (sexual identity).

While I hate nobody, making that perfectly clear, it's going to be fun to watch this ensue when hate speech laws are finally on the books because they didn't think that far ahead to realize that, they too, are the hateful ones, and might get wrapped up in inciting violence against another protected class, or carted off for their own hate speech. That is, unless you exclude a specific group from the law, but that'd only take things to the Supreme Court.

Hate Speech is anything nasty about a person that you hate.
It is a form of bigotry that you need to know.

I think @Mr Lucky is a lawyer or knows a lot about laws.

As someone who has been taken to court for defamation you do have to be very careful about what you post up as it can get you sued by people that you targeted.