Quote:
Originally Posted by jem
Indeed, although many laws are deliberately vague as it is impossible to absolutely clarify what is allowed and what isn’t. An example would be ‘possession of an offensive weapon’, well we are all guilty of that, I assume we all have kitchen knives. The object is not offensive in itself, it’s how we act with it - if I have a wheel brace in the boot of my car, that’s fine, take it out and run around town waving it menacingly - that’s another matter.
You can’t absolutely define ‘inappropriate things’, what you could do, in theory, is have every single social media post moderated and checked by a human, who makes a judgement call or whether or not this is ‘appropriate’ before it is available to view, not retrospectively.
|
Case law helps a lot with this - for example the usual test for dishonesty comes from Ivey v Genting Casinos and is in two stages, basically that the person thought their conduct was dishonest, and that a reasonable person would think it is dishonest too - the concept of "what would an honest/ordinary/reasonable person do/think/etc" already exists across several other examples of case law.
I'd imagine that in principle they could introduce some sort of statutory measure saying "posts outside the conduct of reasonable person" or something to that effect and then let courts decide through case law how that is going to be interpreted, but then they would probably not want to put too much through courts because of the time involved in these proceedings.
Some forums/social media sites already do pre-mod posts but in busier sites it's just not practical to do that for everyone