4 ms·

This might be an issue with 1A , but we shall see. It's about accountability imho. From CEO's to our elected leaders to law enforcement to celebrities. This is

This might be an issue with 1A , but we shall see. It's about accountability imho. From CEO's to our elected leaders to law enforcement to celebrities. This is very generalized, but there is a huge lack of people being held accountable for their actions and decisions in this country. It's always someone else. I.E I think here, Jussie Smollett is a good recent example. The Equifax hack for example is an example of where the CEO failed. Easy fix, and could have been addressed but it was not. Equifax should not exist imho. They are in the business to keep our data private, and they clearly failed. Why do they get to continue to operate as nothing happened? They exposed millions of users private and confidential info, and all we get is credit reporting, and some of us get maybe a few dollars. sigh

maerF0x0 7y ago
> This might be an issue with 1A , but we shall see. This took me a few minutes to figure out. For others, I believe 1A refers to the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
- sarcasmatwork 7y ago
  I apologize here, should have been more clear. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment This explains how lying is not protected in some cases, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/conlaw/lying.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/conlaw/lying.h... or this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-th...
awinder 7y ago
False statement of fact is not protected free speech, and has a long history of case law. So I'm not sure about hand-wringing over the constitutional impacts is really a serious concern.
- Shivetya 7y ago
  That is not entirely true, it all depends on who the target of the speech is. Law enforcement certainly can lie to the public. I am always of the opinion, government first. As in, want to apply an accountability rule; or any law for that matter, apply it to those who write the law first and make their penalties more severe. In this case, this is a lot of election year posturing. We already have accounts of government officials leaking private information and that rarely lands with anyone being penalized.
  - Judgmentality 7y ago
    > That is not entirely true, it all depends on who the target of the speech is. Law enforcement certainly can lie to the public. Why can law enforcement lie to the public? I honestly don't know what you're alluding to.
    - curryst 7y ago
      They can, for instance, tell you that one of your supposed cohorts has already told them what happened, but you can still receive a reduced sentence if you confess. I can also recall a few cases where they have lied to suspects about their rights, I believe largely within the CBP. I'm not sure how that interacts with your Miranda Rights (i.e. they have to read your Miranda rights, but are they then allowed to lie about them?).
      - Judgmentality 7y ago
        Honestly it sounds bad that we say it's okay for the police to lie in order to coerce a confession. I wonder how much it would reduce false confessions if we did so. My hunch, based on no data (if someone knows more please chime in because I am interested) is at least 90% of false confessions would disappear. I say that because I believe most false confessions are essentially bullied out of people by police. Everybody has seen Making A Murderer. I don't think that's the norm by any means, but it's proof this happens. I understand why they do it. But I am 100% for anything to increase police accountability. They should be held to a higher standard and obviously that is not the case today (at least in the United States).

maerF0x0 7y ago

> This might be an issue with 1A , but we shall see. This took me a few minutes to figure out. For others, I believe 1A refers to the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

sarcasmatwork 7y ago
I apologize here, should have been more clear. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment This explains how lying is not protected in some cases, http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/conlaw/lying.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/fTrials/conlaw/lying.h... or this https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-the-first-amendment-protect-deliberate-lies/496004/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/does-th...

awinder 7y ago

False statement of fact is not protected free speech, and has a long history of case law. So I'm not sure about hand-wringing over the constitutional impacts is really a serious concern.

Shivetya 7y ago
That is not entirely true, it all depends on who the target of the speech is. Law enforcement certainly can lie to the public. I am always of the opinion, government first. As in, want to apply an accountability rule; or any law for that matter, apply it to those who write the law first and make their penalties more severe. In this case, this is a lot of election year posturing. We already have accounts of government officials leaking private information and that rarely lands with anyone being penalized.
- Judgmentality 7y ago
  > That is not entirely true, it all depends on who the target of the speech is. Law enforcement certainly can lie to the public. Why can law enforcement lie to the public? I honestly don't know what you're alluding to.
  - curryst 7y ago
    They can, for instance, tell you that one of your supposed cohorts has already told them what happened, but you can still receive a reduced sentence if you confess. I can also recall a few cases where they have lied to suspects about their rights, I believe largely within the CBP. I'm not sure how that interacts with your Miranda Rights (i.e. they have to read your Miranda rights, but are they then allowed to lie about them?).
    - Judgmentality 7y ago
      Honestly it sounds bad that we say it's okay for the police to lie in order to coerce a confession. I wonder how much it would reduce false confessions if we did so. My hunch, based on no data (if someone knows more please chime in because I am interested) is at least 90% of false confessions would disappear. I say that because I believe most false confessions are essentially bullied out of people by police. Everybody has seen Making A Murderer. I don't think that's the norm by any means, but it's proof this happens. I understand why they do it. But I am 100% for anything to increase police accountability. They should be held to a higher standard and obviously that is not the case today (at least in the United States).