Reply to post: What, exactly, is 'free speech'

War on Section 230 begins in earnest as Dem senators look to limit legal immunity for social networks, websites etc

Martin Gregorie

What, exactly, is 'free speech'

It seems to me, as a non-USAian, that 'free speech' has a corollary, that you can say whatever you like, but YOU, as the speaker or writer, are absolutely responsible for what you say or write. AFAIK this is its meaning under British Law as well as most Commonwealth members' legal systems. If it doesn't have this meaning under the US Constitution, kindly enlighten me about its legal meaning there.

A law along these lines would get social media off their current hook BUT, and its a big but, they MUST know who published an objectionable or defamatory post so that the lawyers can hit the correct target, namely the author. In other words, it should not be possible to be legally anonymous on these sites. Said another way, you may ask that the site publishes your post with the 'anonymous' tag, but they must not do that unless they know exactly who you are and can provide a legally correct identity in response to a legal request. If they can't do that, then they didn't follow the rules and get to pick up the legal bill as a direct result of failing to identify the author.

In my understanding the above conforms to British and Commonwealth law and may also define to Free Speech as defined in the US Constitution too: if not, please explain.. Most of Europe seems to use a derivative of Napoleonic Law, which I don't understand at all,

Whistle blowing is quite another issue and nothing whatever to do with Free Speech. It must be fully protected in all cases until legally proved wrong. Releasing any whistle-blowing information to anybody other than the intended recipient should be treated as a crime and prosecuted appropriately.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon