4 ms·
It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to
by throwaway2048 7y ago
It wouldn't be difficult to construct a legal standard of "reasonably certain falsehood, presented as truth" (lets say, if a reasonable person took 5 minutes to research this, what would they conclude?) and then set a $500 fine per view in ads and news, and let the courts take care of it.
Slander and libel already aren't protected speech, I fail to see why knowingly making false statements (especially maliciously, and especially in an automated, large scale systematic way) should be any different. You aren't protecting anyone's liberty here, the only thing you are doing is enabling abusive, destructive parties.
Not everything is a slippery slope to 1984.
- zaroth 7y agoThe courts have taken care of it, back in 1964 with Times v. Sullivan. Limitations on freedom of political speech have to pass strict constitutional scrutiny, and a general standard of “truthfulness” would never fly. Even libel and slander laws are particular lax when it comes to public figures. When it comes to political speech in a campaign it only gets tighter. The standard is Actual Malice, and it’s harder to prove then you might think. If there’s one form of speech which is absolutely protected by the first amendment, it is controversial, venomous political rhetoric.