Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

pandodaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#81

Post by rymith »

tomjen3 wrote: post #67
rymith wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although a defense, Fair Use would certainly allow news organizations to publish those images without concern.

Maybe, but he could dmca them. There is basically no penalty for that, even if they win.

Well, no, it's Fair Use. It's a legal defense, but since a news site would be hosting their own content, and editorializing, they would be be able to claim safe harbor. So a DMCA takedown would be effectively ignores, and followed up in the courts. Regardless, it's text book fair use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#82

Post by lsdkhjfvgasn »

dkarl wrote: post #34
citricsquid wrote: post #10

Every time something like this happens people react in quite predictable ways, the creation of Facebook pages is one of the more common ones. Why do people do this? Does it come from social pressure to show just how angry they are with actions, is it just how people cope with terrible news (by doing something even if it's ultimately futile) or is it just another case of humans doing irrational things? My google-fu is…

I can't offer a psychological explanation, but my impression from the people I know who are the most eager to offer their opinion on the shooter is that they love it, that this is the coolest thing that happened to them this month. They'd be bored without it (or they'd be stirring up drama with their friends or co-workers.) They say they're angry, but they seem more excited and gleeful. Some people love tracking hurr…

Dramaturgy is pretty well explained in Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" as the Pranksters' concept of everyone living in their own movie.

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#83

Post by bluedanieru »

benesch wrote: post #70
bluedanieru wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... what? It would be hard for authorities in the US to pass a law restricting speech, so instead they just restrict speech without going through the bother of making a law about it? How is that better?

It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement. I'm not supporting the current state of affairs; not at all. Just pointing out that you'd have trouble pushing such a (legal) restriction on the US press.

>It's better than restricting speech through law AND enforcement.

Are you sure about that? If a government passes a law restricting speech because it has to, and then enforces it to restrict speech, it isn't clear to me that's worse than a government which doesn't bother with laws in the first place. Either way, you have no freedom of speech, but at least with the former you still have some semblance of rule of law. That's more important than speech, IMO (although of course without both you're already pretty fucked).

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#84

Post by JshWright »

"...should Facebook be more proactive in removing (at least provisionally) hate groups like the ones listed above? Okay, before you start crying foul about free speech and the 1st amendment..."

Is there some Facebook Constitution I'm not aware of? What duty does Facebook have to uphold the first amendment?

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#85

Post by lostlogin »

benesch wrote: post #21
melvinmt wrote: post #15

This is why Dutch publishers are prohibited to publish last names of suspects (even after conviction). In this case it would be abbreviated to "Adam L.". They even protect the identities of the most notorious killers and terrorists (Volkert van der G., Karst T., Samir A.). The US should do the same, solves a lot of problems outlined in this article.

You'd run into quite a bit of trouble with the first amendment and freedom of the press.

It ever ceases to amaze me how stuck America is where it's constitution is concerned. It's hundreds of years old and never imagined times like now. Change it. Those that wrote it would have changed it if it didn't suit them. Do the same.

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#86

Post by rhizome »

benesch wrote: post #69
rhizome wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key term: "ordinarily."

Right, so "in the majority of rapes." Which extends to the "majority of crimes."

"Ordinarily" also implies that it's subject to change. There's nothing inherent in the law that prevents the change being discussed, other than the status quo.

Re: What’s Facebook’s responsibility when the nation seeks to lynch someone?

#88

Post by benesch »

lostlogin wrote: post #85
benesch wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd run into quite a bit of trouble with the first amendment and freedom of the press.

It ever ceases to amaze me how stuck America is where it's constitution is concerned. It's hundreds of years old and never imagined times like now. Change it. Those that wrote it would have changed it if it didn't suit them. Do the same.

I'll agree that the Constitution is horribly outdated in many situations and that the amendment process is unnecessarily complex.

But this is one situation that DID exist in 1787. Surely there were criminals in big(ish) cities, and surely the press was reporting on those criminals. Perhaps social media makes press errors more damaging, but the principle—protecting the privacy of criminals and victims—very much existed back then.

Post reply on HN