3 ms·

Jestin Coler is a cancer and his actions should be made illegal. It seems possible such a law could be narrowly applied such that it would prove constitutional

Jestin Coler is a cancer and his actions should be made illegal. It seems possible such a law could be narrowly applied such that it would prove constitutional. Judicial review could weigh the value to society of false speech, or lying, against the erosion of integrity in the free press. One example of a false speech review was the stolen valor act. Lot of doors left open here; http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/the_first_amendment_and_the_right_to_lie http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/the_first_amendment_a...

veidr 10y ago
As long as we're making up fantasy laws to solve this problem, why don't we just outlaw being lazy, stupid, and gullible?
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  Playing devil's advocate here, but why don't we? It's not the worst idea anyone has ever hand. I sort of think epistemological pollution is an externality of being stupid/gullible that we should make people liable for. Laziness is pretty difficult to operationalize, but if you were literally too lazy to feed your children that would be a form of criminal negligence. So we do, to an extent, already do this.
  - freshhawk 10y ago
    Why don't we? Because thankfully some people understand how power works. Especially the power to imprison people for subjective qualities. Depending on who's judging, this comment could get you in some legal trouble if those laws existed. Flawed people adjudicate and enforce laws. Because they are people. Forgetting that is dangerous.
    - jknoepfler 10y ago
      We already do this very liberally in the United States judicial system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence. This has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with a setting minimum legal bar for due diligence below which an individual can be held accountable in a court of law.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  They aren't as imaginary as you think. There are types of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, for example, is a crime.
freshhawk 10y ago
So who should Trump appoint to prosecute people who they judge to have written fake news? SNL would have been charged just this week. Its almost like the people who put free speech protections in place educated themselves on power, history and law and then thought about it for a bit.
- WhitneyLand 10y ago
  There are already free speech exceptions, do you disagree with all of them? A viable free press was also meant to be a check agains power. I'm afraid of eroding that more than protecting the ability to lie. Btw, the SNL example was a cheap shot, obviously parody is protected speeech and is totally different legallly.
ryuker16 10y ago
Usually they just eventually get sued I assume after picking the wrong target.

veidr 10y ago

As long as we're making up fantasy laws to solve this problem, why don't we just outlaw being lazy, stupid, and gullible?

jknoepfler 10y ago
Playing devil's advocate here, but why don't we? It's not the worst idea anyone has ever hand. I sort of think epistemological pollution is an externality of being stupid/gullible that we should make people liable for. Laziness is pretty difficult to operationalize, but if you were literally too lazy to feed your children that would be a form of criminal negligence. So we do, to an extent, already do this.
- freshhawk 10y ago
  Why don't we? Because thankfully some people understand how power works. Especially the power to imprison people for subjective qualities. Depending on who's judging, this comment could get you in some legal trouble if those laws existed. Flawed people adjudicate and enforce laws. Because they are people. Forgetting that is dangerous.
  - jknoepfler 10y ago
    We already do this very liberally in the United States judicial system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence. This has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with a setting minimum legal bar for due diligence below which an individual can be held accountable in a court of law.
enraged_camel 10y ago
They aren't as imaginary as you think. There are types of speech not protected by the First Amendment. Yelling "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater, for example, is a crime.

freshhawk 10y ago

So who should Trump appoint to prosecute people who they judge to have written fake news? SNL would have been charged just this week. Its almost like the people who put free speech protections in place educated themselves on power, history and law and then thought about it for a bit.

WhitneyLand 10y ago
There are already free speech exceptions, do you disagree with all of them? A viable free press was also meant to be a check agains power. I'm afraid of eroding that more than protecting the ability to lie. Btw, the SNL example was a cheap shot, obviously parody is protected speeech and is totally different legallly.

ryuker16 10y ago

Usually they just eventually get sued I assume after picking the wrong target.