I don’t know how the law works in Australia but one way this could get funny is asking whether Reddit considers itself as a “common carrier” or not. Is Reddit a publisher, or are they a communications platform? If Reddit insists they are a communications platform (and therefore not liable for what people post), they are insisting is not their speech being censored, so what standing do they have to bring this case?
I’m no expert. I’ve just read the constitution (boring, mostly do to with organising the first Parliament. Literally do not understand consty fetishists), the criminal code for my state, some details on contract laws, and a bit of case law that interests me + some convos with lawyers.
There are precedents for things being overturned as unreasonable restrictions on communication and/or political organisation however as you point out there are subtleties in whether something is determined to be a carrier or a publisher. I think reddit would fall under the latter, but it’s a fuzzy vague opinion based on vibes I can’t really explain.
There’s been some back and forth between Australia and our colonial overlords about whether tech companies are liable for publishing criminal stuff/where their responsibility ends.
There’s been some back and forth between Australia and our colonial overlords about whether tech companies are liable for publishing criminal stuff/where their responsibility ends.
This is an excellent point. Regardless of the letter of the law, there will be substantial political pressure from the US to preserve the hegemony of its tech platforms.
it’s not that simple. We’ll see what happens
I don’t know how the law works in Australia but one way this could get funny is asking whether Reddit considers itself as a “common carrier” or not. Is Reddit a publisher, or are they a communications platform? If Reddit insists they are a communications platform (and therefore not liable for what people post), they are insisting is not their speech being censored, so what standing do they have to bring this case?
Removed by mod
I’m no expert. I’ve just read the constitution (boring, mostly do to with organising the first Parliament. Literally do not understand consty fetishists), the criminal code for my state, some details on contract laws, and a bit of case law that interests me + some convos with lawyers.
There are precedents for things being overturned as unreasonable restrictions on communication and/or political organisation however as you point out there are subtleties in whether something is determined to be a carrier or a publisher. I think reddit would fall under the latter, but it’s a fuzzy vague opinion based on vibes I can’t really explain.
There’s been some back and forth between Australia and our colonial overlords about whether tech companies are liable for publishing criminal stuff/where their responsibility ends.
This is an excellent point. Regardless of the letter of the law, there will be substantial political pressure from the US to preserve the hegemony of its tech platforms.
Jim Jordan (US House Rep) already started doing this in November, before Reddit sued.
Edit: obviously to protect tech interests, just a timeline note
Removed by mod
I agree, but I don’t think it’s as simple as the consty no say mah freeze peach therefore meritless