4 ms·

That needs amending, IMO.

by JulianMorrison 7y ago

StreamBright 7y ago
And who is going to decide what is the truth? Ministry of truth?
- belltaco 7y ago
  See other countries where there are stricter rules, UK for example. The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?
  - makomk 7y ago
    The UK is infamous for its ruinous libel lawsuits against people who dare to say true things about the rich and powerful. It was so widely abused that the US ended up having to introduce a law blocking our libel suits fronm being enforced over there.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    Other countries? Ok. - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive - https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil... - https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-speech-and-individual-rights-disappearing-hungary https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee... It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.
- Jihakuz 7y ago
  Don't worry guys, we'll just us AI to decide what's true or not!
- blackflame 7y ago
  Controversial Suggestion: People discern truth for themselves like they always have and will always continue to do. True and Trustworthy are two very different things when it comes to human instinct. Something that is true but not trustworthy due to lack of feedback may be wrong in the future. Furthermore something that proves to be trustworthy on some subjects might not be the same on others
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  Typically jury of your peers, they are after all called the finders of fact.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    What rate of misjudgment would you be ok with? I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.
    - throwaway_law 7y ago
      >Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary That is generally why >90% of all lawsuits in negotiated settlements without going to trial/verdict.
tonmoy 7y ago
Does it? What if the government decides the earth is the center of the universe and imprisons the scientist who has observable proof that it isn’t? What’s if the government decides “encryption with backdoor is unsafe” is a false statement and suppresses all speech that says otherwise?
- JulianMorrison 7y ago
  Slippery slope arguments like this are stupid because a government determined to be a bad actor isn't going to let a constitution stop them. Russia has a constitution, heck, Soviet Russia did. The reality of having laws against broadcasting lies is that they will be applied sensibly if the rest of the system is sensible - and if it is not, you have worse problems.
  - Vaslo 7y ago
    I’m not sure that comparing Russia to the US in this instance is any less “stupid”.
    - JulianMorrison 7y ago
      Russia past and present is an illustrative example of a government determined to be oppressive.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The people who will have control of the system have no incentive to be sensible; they have incentives to do what the executive government tells them to do and situations get very political very quickly. Consider the IRS vs conservative groups under Obama (according to Republicans). The issue isn't a slippery slope as much as it is centralising power to a single point vulnerable to corruption & allowing politically charged decisions to be hidden behind opaque bureaucratic processes.
  - awayfromhomenow 7y ago
    Slippery slope arguments take into consideration the very human capacity to become accustomed to a certain boundary, and then seek to push beyond that boundary. For good or ill, look at the progression of rights leading to the current transgender/feminist argument over what constitutes a woman. 50 years ago that would not have even been a discussion. You would be hard-pressed to ever see a government give ground where once they have asserted authority. Only encroaching further into our rights.
quickthrower2 7y ago
That would be a big problem for religion and indeed science. Religion is largely based on faith so cannot be 'true' or 'false'. Science is based on theory. Scientists may disagree as to what is true.

That needs amending, IMO.

StreamBright 7y ago

And who is going to decide what is the truth? Ministry of truth?

belltaco 7y ago
See other countries where there are stricter rules, UK for example. The judicial and court system are already tasked with finding truths, how is that not "the ministry of Truth" ?
- makomk 7y ago
  The UK is infamous for its ruinous libel lawsuits against people who dare to say true things about the rich and powerful. It was so widely abused that the US ended up having to introduce a law blocking our libel suits fronm being enforced over there.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  Other countries? Ok. - https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-count... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... I really like how you cannot advocate for the abolition of the monarchy, very progressive - https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privilege-not-a-right https://www.cecc.gov/freedom-of-expression-in-china-a-privil... - https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-speech-and-individual-rights-disappearing-hungary https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/rule-law-free-spee... It is only a matter of time how the government can abuse these laws. This is why the 1st amendment is brilliant, cannot be abused.
Jihakuz 7y ago
Don't worry guys, we'll just us AI to decide what's true or not!
blackflame 7y ago
Controversial Suggestion: People discern truth for themselves like they always have and will always continue to do. True and Trustworthy are two very different things when it comes to human instinct. Something that is true but not trustworthy due to lack of feedback may be wrong in the future. Furthermore something that proves to be trustworthy on some subjects might not be the same on others
throwaway_law 7y ago
Typically jury of your peers, they are after all called the finders of fact.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  What rate of misjudgment would you be ok with? I think cases like George J. Stinney's prove that it is not a reliable process. Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary, like limiting freedom of expression.
  - throwaway_law 7y ago
    >Best is to avoid any judgment when it is not necessary That is generally why >90% of all lawsuits in negotiated settlements without going to trial/verdict.

tonmoy 7y ago

Does it? What if the government decides the earth is the center of the universe and imprisons the scientist who has observable proof that it isn’t? What’s if the government decides “encryption with backdoor is unsafe” is a false statement and suppresses all speech that says otherwise?

JulianMorrison 7y ago
Slippery slope arguments like this are stupid because a government determined to be a bad actor isn't going to let a constitution stop them. Russia has a constitution, heck, Soviet Russia did. The reality of having laws against broadcasting lies is that they will be applied sensibly if the rest of the system is sensible - and if it is not, you have worse problems.
- Vaslo 7y ago
  I’m not sure that comparing Russia to the US in this instance is any less “stupid”.
  - JulianMorrison 7y ago
    Russia past and present is an illustrative example of a government determined to be oppressive.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The people who will have control of the system have no incentive to be sensible; they have incentives to do what the executive government tells them to do and situations get very political very quickly. Consider the IRS vs conservative groups under Obama (according to Republicans). The issue isn't a slippery slope as much as it is centralising power to a single point vulnerable to corruption & allowing politically charged decisions to be hidden behind opaque bureaucratic processes.
- awayfromhomenow 7y ago
  Slippery slope arguments take into consideration the very human capacity to become accustomed to a certain boundary, and then seek to push beyond that boundary. For good or ill, look at the progression of rights leading to the current transgender/feminist argument over what constitutes a woman. 50 years ago that would not have even been a discussion. You would be hard-pressed to ever see a government give ground where once they have asserted authority. Only encroaching further into our rights.

quickthrower2 7y ago

That would be a big problem for religion and indeed science. Religion is largely based on faith so cannot be 'true' or 'false'. Science is based on theory. Scientists may disagree as to what is true.