4 ms·
with Defamation the victim is the only one that has recourse. I would support a blanket law punishing someone is spreading information that know is false. Peop
by lykr0n 8y ago
with Defamation the victim is the only one that has recourse. I would support a blanket law punishing someone is spreading information that know is false. People who say Vaccines can cause autism can't be sued for defamation, but they could get in trouble for knowingly spreading false information.
- icebraining 8y agoSounds like you'd have jailed Galileo. Science, in particular, requires the freedom to go against "what is known to be false".
- lykr0n 8y agoNo... I don't think what Galileo was preaching was verifiablely false.
- icebraining 8y agoCan you define that standard? What's the threshold for being verifiably false?
- lykr0n 8y agoThere is overwhelming evidence that contradicts what you are saying, yet you keep preaching the invalidated statements you're making for a reason of malice or attempt to influence someone who doesn't know better.
- geofft 8y agoIt was verifiably false in the eyes of the authorities, in their interpretation of the Bible and the deposit of Sacred Tradition. (It was not, as it turned out, verifiably false in the eyes of either scientists or in the eyes of those entrusted with Sacred Tradition 400 years later, but neither of those groups were in power.) If you really think you'd trust the Catholic hierarchy of the 1600s to fairly decide what's verifiably false, we have vastly different understandings of the reason to declare rights like the freedom of speech. I see it as a bright line that makes it obvious to everyone when corrupt and fallible governments are making decisions they shouldn't be making.