51 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)
View submission: Defending the open Internet (again): Our latest brief to the Supreme Court
This might not be relevant for the underlying legal argument. But depending on the outcome there might be legal trouble ahead for mods living in other countries, especially those who moderate country specific subs as the US definition of free speech / freedom of expression might clash with other countries' laws. While it might not a problem for a US citizen to post some things it might be a criminal offence in other countries. Mods could potentially get into legal trouble if they can't delete certain comments or posts.
Comment by traceroo at 21/02/2024 at 21:08 UTC
46 upvotes, 2 direct replies
You are right: almost every country thinks of freedom of speech slightly differently, as reflected by their own history and their own culture. Nevertheless, we do our best to protect our communities and their moderators when governments and individuals come to us claiming that a particular piece of content is illegal under local law. Check out our transparency report[1] where we talk about stuff like that.
1: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/2023-h1-transparency-report
Comment by Rough_Outside7588 at 25/02/2024 at 07:35 UTC
3 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I find it ironic that the notion of freedom of expression includes censorship.
Comment by brothapipp at 17/03/2024 at 06:58 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Or they could abdicate their position.
Free speech is human right, regardless of where you live. You don't bow down to totalitarians so you keep your unpaid job as a moderator.
Comment by sulphide0 at 02/05/2024 at 19:14 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
This precisely why the internet needs borders. This problem already exists with out without hb 20.