Comment by tene80i
4 months ago
What standards would you want individuals or small groups to be held to? In a context where it is illegal for a company to allow hate speech or CSAM on their website, should individuals be allowed to? Or do you just mean the punishment should be less?
The obvious solution is to have law enforcement enforce the law rather than private parties. If someone posts something bad to your site, the police try to find who posted it and arrest them, and the only obligation on the website is to remove the content in response to a valid court order.
I don't have a strong view on this law – I haven't read enough into it. So I'm interested to know why you believe what you've just written. If a country is trying to, for example, make harder for CSAM to be distributed, why shouldn't the person operating the site where it's being hosted have some responsibility to make sure it can't be hosted there?
For one thing, because that person is not obliged to follow due process and will likely ban everything that even might even vaguely require them to involve a lawyer. See for example YouTube’s copyright strikes, which are much harsher on the uploader than any existing copyright law.
4 replies →
How about:
Individuals and small groups not held directly liable for comments on their blog unless its proven they're responsible for inculcating that environment.
"Safe harbour" - if someone threatens legal action, the host can pass on liability to the poster of the comment. They can (temporarily) hide/remove the comment until a court decides on its legality.
How about have separate laws for CSAM and "hate speech". Because CSAM is most likely just a fig-leaf for the primary motivation of these laws.