> If I defamed/libeled you right here, right now and HN didn't immediately delete my post, would that make HN liable and hence able to be sued?
That doesn't matter, and that's not what I said. What matters is what section 230 says, not what you or I think should or shouldn't happen. What matters is that if you did so and I contacted HN and informed them that illegal material is being hosted and published on their service, if they made no reasonable effort to remove it, they would be liable. That is the only point I'm making. You're arguing against someone else's (hole riddled) point, not my point.
In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel.
FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense, and if you actually did say anything libelous, regardless whether HN responded to a request, I could sue you, and win, because you've explicitly confirmed that what you may or may not say in response to this was in fact intended to be libel. I'm not a litigious individual and don't really care what you say about me, but being candid, this line of discussion you're engaging in is reckless and stupid.
>In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel.
But it ain't libel unless and until the court says it is. Which makes your argument specious at best.
>FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense,
Firstly, libel is not illegal content. It's a civil tort. And sure, I can imagine that HN might ban someone for actual illegal content (torrent links, links to child porn, etc.)
But as I understand it, the First Amendment here in the US (where HN and I are both based), there are just a very few circumstances where my speech could make me civilly liable and almost none which could make me criminally liable.
As such, you're living in a fantasy world.
As for actually libeling/defaming you, given the context of this discussion, even if I made knowingly false statements, it would likely be clear to any jury that my statements were exemplars rather than actual attempts at libel.
What's more, I don't know you. I don't know your name or anything about you.
Since I can't identify you, I have no way to determine whether anything I say about you is true or not. Should I loose a stream of invective and accusations at "betwixtthewires", it really can't be libel, since there's no way for me to do actual harm to you.
Even more, as I said, context matters. I tell you what, if you're game (and have the cash and the will to hire lawyers), I will say awful things about you here.
If you're down for it, I wish you luck with your lawsuits. Because you're gonna need it.
That doesn't matter, and that's not what I said. What matters is what section 230 says, not what you or I think should or shouldn't happen. What matters is that if you did so and I contacted HN and informed them that illegal material is being hosted and published on their service, if they made no reasonable effort to remove it, they would be liable. That is the only point I'm making. You're arguing against someone else's (hole riddled) point, not my point.
In your case I wouldn't report it because I don't particularly care, but in Stossel's case, he did and they left the content up. He has a leg to stand on, if, as you said, the fact check is found by the court to actually be libel.
FYI I'm pretty sure making a positive statement claiming intent to put illegal content on HN is a bannable offense, and if you actually did say anything libelous, regardless whether HN responded to a request, I could sue you, and win, because you've explicitly confirmed that what you may or may not say in response to this was in fact intended to be libel. I'm not a litigious individual and don't really care what you say about me, but being candid, this line of discussion you're engaging in is reckless and stupid.