So, not her local police.
Duh. So if your car was stolen in Phoenix would you call the Mexican Policia Nacional?
And how would contacting the police in another country somehow impact her decision to also discuss it on social media?
Dumb question. Why would it have anything to do with her decision to post unless the investigators asked her not to for some reason?
As far as I can tell, you are proposing that corporations (working with government) should prohibit people from naming names on social media or otherwise discussing sexual assault.
No. Listen POD. You are dealing with me and not someone else. Here is your answer to another dumb question:
As far as I can tell, you are proposing that corporations (working with government) should prohibit people from naming names on social media...
I am proposing nothing as I have repeatedly said. (Why is this hard for you to understand? I will go forward now assuming that you finally understand that.) I pointed out that corporations MAY want to prohibit naming names because they might be held liable in a libel suit. Full stop. (Of course they may want to do it for other reasons but I have no notion about that.) Are you following me so far?
...(working with the government)....
This has nothing to do with the government. If the government wants to get involved that is its own concern. If corporations want to go to the government for shelter from libel and slander laws as they did with copyright infringement that is their concern.
I doubt US free speech laws are applicable for actions that did not occur in the USA.
What free speech laws? Free speech in the US is a constitutional right and it applies to anyone here. As for what may be the prevailing law elsewhere, I have no idea.
Regardless, the idea that people who have lived through abuse can and should be allowed to discuss it, including names, is entirely consistent with having no government regulation on free speech in social media.
Who is maintaining otherwise? Certainly not me. She is free to post that I am a bank robber. I will, of course, sue the shit out of her for it if she can't prove I am a bank robber so her friends or any other concerned person might advise her not to. And I may sue Facebook (for example) for letting her post it. Only a court can decide then how it comes out. And this is the key POD. Pay attention"
The truth is an absolute defense. If she can prove he did what she says he did then she can post it on every street corner in America. But if she can't prove it she could be subject to a devastating law suit or, in some limited circumstances, criminal penalties.
Who else will enforce the company’s rights? Who else will fund the courts in which the company will see its policies enforced?
The company enforces its own rights. Take POFO for example. If you call me a disparaging name they will simply delete your post. If you persist they will increase the penalty. If you will not stop they will simply cancel your account. There is no government involvement. Nor is there the slightest need for any.
I can tell my teenagers that if they do not wash the dishes when I tell them to that they will lose their phone for a day. And this is functionally equivalent to me telling them they “should” wash the dishes.
You have authority over your children and can sanction them if they refuse as you said. I have no control over Twitter or Facebook. I am not advising the either way. I am not talking to them at all. I am telling you what might happen under certain rare circumstances.
Most importantly, did you read Eileen Holowka’s words? They are already posted in this thread.
Yes But what was said is irrelevant. I really don't care. My point is more general. I am pointing out the nature of the services on which one might wish to air his/her grievances. And I am pointing out that there could be consequences.
You see POD, in the example I gave above about the bank robbery allegation it does not, at the end of the process, matter whether I robbed said bank or not. It matters whether someone can prove it. I may know that I robbed the bank. I may also conclude that although you suspect I did you can't prove it. So if you post that I did rob the bank I can sue you and, if I am correct that you lack evidence
, prevail against you in court and wind up with a substantial judgment against you.
Then there is the court of public opinion. Not everyone shares your view of the technique of calling out people on social media without proof. In fact, I suspect that most people don't care for the practice very much. Others may not feel it is an appropriate subject for public discourse at all. For example. I oppose the practice of "outing" homosexuals on social media. I believe it is an invasion of privacy and potentially dangerous to the person who is outed.
So POD. There are any number of ideas that a privately held company may choose to consider when deciding whether or not to allow any behavior. It is their decision.
So in your next post do not begin any sentences with "you" or "so you" or "your believe". You know what I believe now.
If you would like to ask me my opinion about what I think these companies would be wise to do then I am happy to tell you that. I have not done that up to this point
"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated." Trump.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay? " Trump
The American dream is about freedom. Pelosi