Comment by auveair
4 years ago
> the content was not illegal
The content was clearly libelous and defamatory, which is pretty illegal. In some countries it would also count as harassement.
4 years ago
> the content was not illegal
The content was clearly libelous and defamatory, which is pretty illegal. In some countries it would also count as harassement.
The content was embarrassing and revealing for the people it concerned (hence efforts to remove it through any means necessary), but not libelous or defamatory - it consisted of archived material of their own words.
Libelous/defamatory content is not illegal in the same vein as pirated movies or CSAM, in that the Internet Archive would be criminally liable for hosting it. I wouldn’t imagine it’s illegal for IA to host a snapshot of a defamatory news article, for example.
> The content was clearly libelous and defamatory, which is pretty illegal.
That is incorrect. In the US, the _act_ of libel is illegal and the author of it can get into legal trouble. And a publisher might if they knowingly published false information, which is harder to prove. But the libelous _content_ itself is not illegal and is in fact protected by the First Amendment.