6 ms·

> I was stunned at how someone with zero evidence and an obvious axe to grind could rally such disdain for someone else with little more than a few unsubstanti

by WDCDev 5y ago

> I was stunned at how someone with zero evidence and an obvious axe to grind could rally such disdain for someone else with little more than a few unsubstantiated social media posts. I feel that this is due to the weird place victimization occupies in our culture combined with how anti-social social media is. It's extremely easy to issue accusations and threats and have them be read by literally millions of people. You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. It's depressing to consider MORE litigation as the solution here, but I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail.

pjc50 5y ago
> strengthening our libel laws This nearly always advantages businesses and the wealthy, especially in false or ambiguous situations, and whistleblowers of all kinds. Litigation is incredibly expensive and slow. Do people really want to spend a house worth and several years on this kind of fight? (This is why the US felt it necessary to pass laws against UK libel judgements being enforced, it was infringing on US standards of free speech)
- WDCDev 5y ago
  Whistleblowers have plenty of protections and can be exempted. Libel can be stated such that they only apply to private matters between individuals, where accusations that do not reach the felony level - which is exactly what is going on here. I have no doubt we could protect all interests, while limiting the power of the wealthy and powerful.
  - jhayward 5y ago
    Whistleblowers have functionally no protections, I don't know how anyone could have knowledge of whistleblower cases and claim otherwise. Any attorney will tell you - if you are going to blow the whistle on some entity that is powerful, you will lose your job, your home, your ability to work in your field, and your life will be in legal hell for decades.
- imgabe 5y ago
  Truth is always an absolute defense to libel. If you can back up what you’re saying, libel isn’t a concern. And if you can't prove what you're saying is true, then why are you saying it?
  - benhurmarcel 5y ago
    Even if you say the truth, you still need to pay for a lawyer's swimming pool.
  - fuzxi 5y ago
    Really? You've never talked about something that happened to you without photographic evidence of the event? Really?
    - imgabe 5y ago
      With the intent of siccing a mob of people on someone to harass them online? No, never. In the article, the problem is not that the women discussed the fact that they had received harassing emails, but that they attributed those emails to a particular person without any proof that that is true. "I received an anonymous harassing email" - true statement, not libel "I received an anonymous harassing email and it was definitely from this guy" - if you can't prove it, could be libel. See the difference?
  - eyelidlessness 5y ago
    There are several people who have severely traumatized me by actions they took to harm my body, violate my sexual consent, and/or manipulate my life so that I was under their power in ways I didn’t agree to. I couldn’t imagine convincing a jury of any of these. If you make saying they happened a criminal exposure for me, I can’t warn others of the danger those people put me in, or even process my pain and grief, without fear of losing a court battle I have no chance of winning. I’m sensitive to the damage false claims can do, but I think it’s unreasonable to say that people should be liable in a court of law to prove things that are private and unprovable. And it has a chilling effect, where people who’ve experienced similar trauma will be discouraged from sharing their experience because the risk is too high. It’s already dangerous to accuse anyone with any kind of public presence of anything, people will defend them to the point of harassment, stalking and violence, out of pure loyalty. Adding legal repercussions for stating that a thing happened where no one could produce conclusive evidence to confirm or deny it just means more people suffer privately without even the recourse of telling anyone what happened.
Vektorweg 5y ago
> I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail. least not with the current common education.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. I am unconvinced that there is anything that could be done to strengthen libel laws that would have this effect short of also shutting down essential freedom of expression, given that Western regimes with stronger libel laws are not free of it, and our libel laws tend to go pretty much right up to the limit federal courts have found the First Amendment to impose on them.
- not2b 5y ago
  Might want to talk to folks in Singapore, where the government infamously uses strict libel laws to bankrupt and jail its critics.
wslack 5y ago
It's tricky because these accusations resonate because they remind us of things that really happen. (and in fact, lies can be formulated for maximum impact when truthtelling is usually more nuanced) Because powerful people have strong lawyers, the tools that the falsely accused can use to clear their name can be used, to more effect, by the guilty. There are no easy solutions here. The past looked calm only because people often had no recourse unless a newspaper took up their cause.
3grdlurker 5y ago
> You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. It would reach far less people, yes, but we used to burn witches, too, so it seems that internet mobs are just a modern manifestation of that.

by WDCDev 5y ago

pjc50 5y ago

> strengthening our libel laws This nearly always advantages businesses and the wealthy, especially in false or ambiguous situations, and whistleblowers of all kinds. Litigation is incredibly expensive and slow. Do people really want to spend a house worth and several years on this kind of fight? (This is why the US felt it necessary to pass laws against UK libel judgements being enforced, it was infringing on US standards of free speech)

WDCDev 5y ago
Whistleblowers have plenty of protections and can be exempted. Libel can be stated such that they only apply to private matters between individuals, where accusations that do not reach the felony level - which is exactly what is going on here. I have no doubt we could protect all interests, while limiting the power of the wealthy and powerful.
- jhayward 5y ago
  Whistleblowers have functionally no protections, I don't know how anyone could have knowledge of whistleblower cases and claim otherwise. Any attorney will tell you - if you are going to blow the whistle on some entity that is powerful, you will lose your job, your home, your ability to work in your field, and your life will be in legal hell for decades.
imgabe 5y ago
Truth is always an absolute defense to libel. If you can back up what you’re saying, libel isn’t a concern. And if you can't prove what you're saying is true, then why are you saying it?
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  Even if you say the truth, you still need to pay for a lawyer's swimming pool.
- fuzxi 5y ago
  Really? You've never talked about something that happened to you without photographic evidence of the event? Really?
  - imgabe 5y ago
    With the intent of siccing a mob of people on someone to harass them online? No, never. In the article, the problem is not that the women discussed the fact that they had received harassing emails, but that they attributed those emails to a particular person without any proof that that is true. "I received an anonymous harassing email" - true statement, not libel "I received an anonymous harassing email and it was definitely from this guy" - if you can't prove it, could be libel. See the difference?
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
  There are several people who have severely traumatized me by actions they took to harm my body, violate my sexual consent, and/or manipulate my life so that I was under their power in ways I didn’t agree to. I couldn’t imagine convincing a jury of any of these. If you make saying they happened a criminal exposure for me, I can’t warn others of the danger those people put me in, or even process my pain and grief, without fear of losing a court battle I have no chance of winning. I’m sensitive to the damage false claims can do, but I think it’s unreasonable to say that people should be liable in a court of law to prove things that are private and unprovable. And it has a chilling effect, where people who’ve experienced similar trauma will be discouraged from sharing their experience because the risk is too high. It’s already dangerous to accuse anyone with any kind of public presence of anything, people will defend them to the point of harassment, stalking and violence, out of pure loyalty. Adding legal repercussions for stating that a thing happened where no one could produce conclusive evidence to confirm or deny it just means more people suffer privately without even the recourse of telling anyone what happened.

Vektorweg 5y ago

> I don't think we can depend on the good nature of people and rationality to ultimately prevail. least not with the current common education.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> At some point we to start thinking about strengthening our libel laws to act as a deterrent to this type of online behaviors. I am unconvinced that there is anything that could be done to strengthen libel laws that would have this effect short of also shutting down essential freedom of expression, given that Western regimes with stronger libel laws are not free of it, and our libel laws tend to go pretty much right up to the limit federal courts have found the First Amendment to impose on them.

not2b 5y ago
Might want to talk to folks in Singapore, where the government infamously uses strict libel laws to bankrupt and jail its critics.

wslack 5y ago

It's tricky because these accusations resonate because they remind us of things that really happen. (and in fact, lies can be formulated for maximum impact when truthtelling is usually more nuanced) Because powerful people have strong lawyers, the tools that the falsely accused can use to clear their name can be used, to more effect, by the guilty. There are no easy solutions here. The past looked calm only because people often had no recourse unless a newspaper took up their cause.

3grdlurker 5y ago

> You would never dare vocalize these same threats and and accusations publically - and even if you did, in the pre-internet days, it would reach far far fewer people. It would reach far less people, yes, but we used to burn witches, too, so it seems that internet mobs are just a modern manifestation of that.