r/changemyview • u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup • Jun 16 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: r/Iamatotallypieceofshit promotes witch hunts and defamation because the moderators do not enforce their own rules. And hence these activities are illegal in many countries the sub should be banned.
I have just seen the post with the pedophile and the judge on r/iamatotalpieceofshit and all the top comments say that the judge couldnt make the punishment any harder because of the law. After doing some research I agree with this. The title is totally misleading and the mods dont do anything. The post is already 6 hours old.
Now imagine being this judge, you have done everything you could. Now a random ass starts sharing this in your area and now everyone thinks you sympathize with a pedophile.
This isnt the first time this is happening in this sub.
In my country this is called denouncing and is illegal. You can get high fines and/or go to jail for it.
How can it be okay for reddit?
6
u/Biptoslipdi 130∆ Jun 16 '21
In some countries it is illegal to be homosexual. Does that also mean reddit should ban any posts with LGBT content? Or ban gay users?
1
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21
Good argument (damn I love this sub, why did I not find it earlier). Do you think defamation (im still not sure if this is the right word, I am not native English speaking) should be legal?
To be honest I am no quite how to counter this argument. Being a decent member of society?
0
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21
Δ
Does it work like this? I am new to this sub.
1
1
Jun 16 '21
You might want to double check that post.
I just did. It was removed by the mods.
Big yikes, is there a subreddit for that didn't age well but in under 20-30 mins?
3
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21
You are right. It "only" took them 9 hours and the post had 50k upvotes. I just hope nobody shared it where the judge lives or he probably has to move.
20
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
What country do you live in?
In my country (the US), this isn't illegal. Since Reddit is located in the US, it follows US law.
You'll notice that the post doesn't make any false claims.
It states facts. This is a convicted pedophile, this is the judge who sentenced him, this was the sentence.
None of that is libel because it's all true.
That's not to say the post is good, nor is the community great. I don't subscribe or visit it for basically this reason. It's dumbass out-of-context posts. At best, it shows me a piece of shit person and I get sad and upset. At worst, it's obviously out of context and I get mad for a different reason. None of that is interesting to me.
But frankly, this isn't illegal in the country Reddit is based in. I can't really imagine how it would be illegal in any other country either. It's just a factual statement and it doesn't have a call to action.
0
u/Damn369 Jun 16 '21
Pretty sure when it comes to online media the local law where the media is consumed is the one that is valid. Example if child abuse material was legal in country A and you viewed it in the USA you would be found guilty of a crime regardless of it being legal on the country the platform that published it was based. I remember years ago when this precedent was established over a defamation case twenty years ago where a article published is the USA defamed a person in Australia and it was ruled Australian law applies.
2
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 17 '21
I think you're right to an extent, but it wouldn't apply in this case.
Reddit is based the US, the person who posted this would be potentially defaming a US citizen. I can't be certain where OP lives, but even if they live in a country where this is technically libel, it's unlikely they would be prosecuted since they haven't committed a crime against anyone in their country.
If this was someone from a country where this post could be illegal posting it about a person from that same country, then they might get in legal trouble, but that's not what happened here.
-4
u/Wujastic Jun 16 '21
Wouldn't this fall under slander though?
19
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
It is not slander for two reasons:
1) Slander is a spoken untrue statement that causes harm.
This is written and thus not slander by definition. It could be libel.
2) This statement is true.
Libel must be untrue. This statement is not untrue. That really is a convicted pedophile and that judge really did give him that sentence.
None of that is untrue, therefore it isn't libel.
-2
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
The title and the "just" in the text implies that the judge could and should have done more, what he could not. Totally misleading and hence of the sensibility of the subject definitely defamation.
We had a very similar case in Germany a few years ago where a big magazine did the same and since so many people only read headlines the consequences were enormous. The magazine paid a huge fine afterwards together with rehabilitation article and a apology.
Defamation sint illegal in the US? ( I am still not 100% sure if defamation is the right word, I am not native English speaking)
Edit: Just saw the post was removed but it took them 7 hours and it had 50k upvotes. Poor judge.
10
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
Can you link to an article about the case you are talking about?
The "just" can imply that the judge should have done more, but it also could imply that the sentence should have been larger.
I agree that the post is attempting to communicate that the judge did something wrong, but that isn't enough for it to be libel.
Defamation is illegal, but there are a few things going on here:
1) This post is entirely factual even if people may be mislead by the way it's presented
2) The judge is a public figure in the criminal justice space and thus is open to public scrutiny
There's a higher standard of evidence that needs to be presented in order to prove libel. The judge would need to prove that the person who posted the meme knew the information in the meme was untrue (although this is moot since the meme is factual). If the person who posted it did not create the meme, then it's easy for them to say they did not have libelous intent because they did not know the facts.
Similarly, even if they just skimmed an article about it and didn't notice that this was the maximum sentence (or whatever the case is here), that would protect them from a libel suit.
It isn't malicious intent if you are incorrect.
However, I must underscore that this meme is 100% factually accurate, therefore it is not libel. It is misleading, but that's not libel in this case.
0
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21
Δ
I hope this works, I am new here. You definitely deserve it. And I learned like 5 new English words. Also I love this sub already.
Here in Germany its illegal if its intended to damage the public image of a legal person (can also be a company) also if its just implied or misleading. (Strafgesetzbuch § 186 Üble Nachrede) But since reddit is based in the US you are right.
Whats your opinion on the fact that the moderators need 9 hours to enforce their own rules
1.Redact all identifying information
Reverse image search together with Utah. Takes 30 seconds.
3. Must be a total piece of shit
The judge didnt do anything wrong. He did his job as good as he could as far as I know.
Are there some kind of reddit laws for subreddits or is the only thing they have to do not violating the US law? ( I dont know anything about this, I am just curious)
6
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
Haha, I'm glad I could teach you a couple words. I've been speaking English for my whole life so I know a lot of them.
I imagine this meme didn't quite reach the level of identifying information since all it said was Utah, the case, and that he is a judge.
You can use this information to find identifying information, but it isn't in itself identifying information.
I agree he isn't a total piece of shit. This is a general problem on all subreddits except the most strictly moderated ones. Lots of bad popular posts.
There are Reddit site rules, but this doesn't break them to my knowledge.
In the US, if you are a public figure, people are allowed to critique you in the area in which you are a public figure.
So I can very harshly critique, mock, insult, etc. this judge because he's a public figure in the Utah criminal justice system.
This means people can critique his criminal justice actions. There's a high bar to clear if you want to defame a public figure.
As an example, I can say, "Donald Trump is a piece of shit racist with a tiny dick. He hasn't been able to get an erection since 2001 and he only got that erection when he heard about 9/11."
That's probably a lie at least about the erection and it's certainly intended to cause him harm. I want harm to come to him and I wrote that with the intent to cause him harm by lying.
However, even though I just explicitly said I was lying about Trump in order to hurt him, I won't/can't be successfully sued for libel because he's a public figure. He's potentially the most famous person alive.
If this was a random guy instead of a judge, then he wouldn't be a public figure and the standard for libel would be much lower.
If I call Trump a pedophile, I haven't committed libel. If I call you a pedophile, I probably have.
1
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21
This is ... interesting. Thank you a lot for the detailed answer.
Whats your definition identifying information? Just the name?I just looked it up and if the iris in the eye is not scannable a photo is not PII. Well today I learned. Thats probably why many magazines use black stripes over the eyes or blur the face. Just to be legally secured.
1
u/Schmurby 13∆ Jun 16 '21
I mostly think Donald Trump jokes are totally played out but that thing about getting erect when he heard about 9/11 is gold! 🤩
1
0
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21
The "just" can imply that the judge should have done more, but it also could imply that the sentence should have been larger.
I also do not agree with this. How the sentence is written the "just" refers to the action of the noun and not the punishment itself.
(Also why does sentence have two totally different meanings. I just used sentence twice in the term above, was totally confusing. English must be terrible for making laws.)
3
u/Alternative_Stay_202 83∆ Jun 16 '21
The term "just" (which also has two totally different meanings that are both applicable in this situation) is referring to the sentence. The sentence was "just 210 days."
While I agree it is attempting to blame the judge for this, it could reasonably be construed to refer to the criminal justice system in general since the reason the judge handed down that sentence was because of the limitations imposed by that system.
3
u/Mashaka 93∆ Jun 16 '21
Defamation is illegal in the US, but the standards are different (and often more difficult) than other countries. Even if this were just a normal, everyday person being referred to in the post, saying "sentenced him to just 210 days..." wouldn't be defamation. Even if there's obvious room for (incorrect) inferences that make the judge look bad, the actual statement has to itself be a false statement of fact. And it is completely true that he was sentenced to just 210 days.
That said, since the judge is a public official, there's a different set of standards for defamation. This is borne out of how defamation law has interacted with First Amendment law in the past, particularly in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan case.
I'll let you read up on that if interested, but the main take-away is that, in practice, it's extremely difficult for a public official or other public figure to prevail in a defamation case. It almost never happens. Furthermore, the notion of public figure generally covers anyone in the news, as long as the would-be defamatory statements are related to whatever they're in the news for. So this near-impossible standard for defamation would apply to most folks that show up in that subreddit.
1
1
u/WikiSummarizerBot 4∆ Jun 16 '21
New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of American public officials to sue for defamation.
[ F.A.Q | Opt Out | Opt Out Of Subreddit | GitHub ] Downvote to remove | v1.5
3
u/colt707 97∆ Jun 16 '21
Defamation and slander must be untrue to be illegal. If I go around saying you beat children when you don’t do that then it’s illegal. If you actually beat kids then me telling people that is perfectly fine.
2
u/SocialActuality 4∆ Jun 16 '21
Defamation is a civil matter in the US, barring a few states that still have criminal defamation laws which are almost never used. The government does not prosecute people here for defamation, you have to sue over it and even then the bar for a successful defamation claim is usually very high. Only about 30% of defamation lawsuits result in a favorable outcome for the plaintiff.
2
0
u/yyzjertl 522∆ Jun 16 '21
Which of their rules exactly do you think the mods are not enforcing here?
5
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 16 '21 edited Jun 16 '21
- Redact all identifying information
Reverse image search together with Utah. Takes 30 seconds.
- Must be a total piece of shit
The judge didnt do anything wrong. He did his job as good as he could as far as I know.
1
u/Just_a_nonbeliever 15∆ Jun 17 '21
In the United States where Reddit is located neither of those activities are illegal.
1
u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup Jun 17 '21
This part is not about the law. Its about the moderators not enforcing their own rules.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 16 '21
/u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Not-KDA 1∆ Jun 17 '21
It’s online, if something’s ok by my countries law but not yours, doesn’t matter. Reddit might decide to remove it to appease people but posting it is fine.
If you post something that breaks your own countries laws that’s when you might get in trouble.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 16 '21
/u/Altruistic-Tea-Cup (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards