3 ms·

>In the US, we call these bureaucrats "judges", and the falsehoods they might combat "libel" and "defamation". No it's not the same, but this doesn't exactly so

>In the US, we call these bureaucrats "judges", and the falsehoods they might combat "libel" and "defamation". No it's not the same, but this doesn't exactly sound like 1984 either. Libel laws in the US are incredibly weak. It's very difficult for a public figure to win a case of defamation against them. But even if that weren't so, the justice system is pretty broken. If you can't afford a lawyer then your outlook isn't good. If that same system starts deciding what is and isn't true then you essentially have a system where poor people are liars. >and it's IMNSHO obvious that nowadays noise is far more harmful to rational discourse than explicit censorship How can you tell? Things that are actually explicitly censored are things you might not even find out about. The US has secret courts and puts gag orders on those that are in there. Yet people aren't outraged about it. I think the disdain for censorship isn't strong enough.

emn13 7y ago
I don't disagree with what you're saying; but the problem sounds more like one of execution than of principle. The US has way too many bad restraints on speech for the wrong reasons; and not enough weaker limitations for more objective reasons. Personally, I think libel laws around are still way too strong in the US; and misguided to start with - but to the extent that they target not merely negative but factually false statements - probably not a bad idea. Just - the legal system should not be involved; not even as a last recourse. It's just way too slow and heavy-handed. We need something much, much lighter; consider e.g. the consequences imposed by a downvote on HN or stackoverflow: not exactly a lot, but still not entirely without effect. Something mild and focused explicitly not on opinion (so not like HN/SO ;-)) but merely on falsehoods would be much less harmful that what we have now, and much more beneficial too.

emn13 7y ago

I don't disagree with what you're saying; but the problem sounds more like one of execution than of principle. The US has way too many bad restraints on speech for the wrong reasons; and not enough weaker limitations for more objective reasons. Personally, I think libel laws around are still way too strong in the US; and misguided to start with - but to the extent that they target not merely negative but factually false statements - probably not a bad idea. Just - the legal system should not be involved; not even as a last recourse. It's just way too slow and heavy-handed. We need something much, much lighter; consider e.g. the consequences imposed by a downvote on HN or stackoverflow: not exactly a lot, but still not entirely without effect. Something mild and focused explicitly not on opinion (so not like HN/SO ;-)) but merely on falsehoods would be much less harmful that what we have now, and much more beneficial too.