Re:Court rules universities may have duty to block websites ...
by EpicEng on Monday December 31, 2018 @02:05PM
(#18796270)
>Billboards, TV etc have a lot of laws associated with them which cause the owners to act preemptively. So, it's generally not possible to anonymously post an explicit x rated image on a Billboard or TV commercial due to the people doing manual content reviews. Prime time TV added tape delays and a manual bleep to avoid similar issues.
Sure, we've decided as a society to limit some freedoms for the greater good. You also cannot shout "fire" in a movie theater. We have libel and slander laws. We have laws against harassment.
It's a question of where to draw the line, and I believe censoring legal discourse crosses it.
Re:Court rules universities may have duty to block websites ...
by Retric on Monday December 31, 2018 @02:16PM
(#18796336)
I don't see a lot of people trying to repeal the "The seven dirty words" you can't say on TV or radio. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
This case is also rather far from the mark of polite discourse and would have been blocked from billboards etc. It's more about how to do this kind of management and some back and forth as we figure out societal norms for new things just seems reasonable to me.
"Figure something out or we block you." -> "How about this?" or "Meh you're not worth dealing with."
That's not to say message boards need to have some person review every post before it goes public. But, that is a possible theoretical solution to this issue. Granted it's not economically viable, but plenty of other businesses models are also limited by the law.
PS: HN is actually a great example of what's possible while still allowing random postings online while avoiding many of these issues.