3 ms·

> push against the First Amendment This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation inc

> push against the First Amendment This isn't a freedom of speech issue since obviously they were free to say whatever they wanted, lies and misinformation included. This doesn't imply freedom from consequences. Causing a company to lose 18% value because they couldn't be bothered to verify is negligence, incompetence, or malice (or a combination) not freedom of speech and it's only fair to receive a fine. Bloomberg is making a habit of such reporting.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
comex 7y ago
It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.
- close04 7y ago
  I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law. Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet". Which is obviously not the case. The free speech and free press clauses protect public media as much as individual persons but what you say on social media will still be used against you. And talking about freedom of press, France doesn't look that bad at all. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
  - comex 7y ago
    > I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. humanrebar wrote that if it had hypothetically occurred in the US, it would "push against the First Amendment". You quoted that phrase and replied that it "isn't a freedom of speech issue", which I interpreted as disputing the claim that it would hypothetically push against the First Amendment. I replied in that context. Whether it violates freedom of speech in a more abstract sense is, of course, subjective. I think that requiring the press to do some degree of due diligence is not unreasonable, but I also think there are advantages to the US's more deferential approach. As for the Press Freedom Index, I'm under no illusion that the US is perfect in that regard.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.
- axlee 7y ago
  If your speech negatively impacts another citizen, and your speech turned out to be all lies, you are absolutely liable for the consequences of it. The "government" is simply here to handle the arbitration.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Only under very specific and difficult-to-prove circumstances. These exceptions to freedom of speech are very narrowly carved out, and for good reason. The broader the exception, the easier it is to instrumentalize for political repression - and there will be a huge desire to do so.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- close04 7y ago
  So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? Or slander? Libel? Obscenity? Telling someone to kill themselves (spoiler alert: you may get convicted for involuntary manslaughter)? [0] In this case the fine was not for the speech but for the market manipulation. Saying "oh we were the victims of a hoax and just believed what a random site said" is not a defense. Case law obviously has plenty of precedent for consequences of free speech. Yes the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech and this is where all the confusion starts. Everybody has their own definition of freedom of speech. Most are wrong or uninformed [1]. Given that even the Supreme Court has varying opinions on this from time to time just says it's not an easy topic. No, you don't have a blank cheque for saying anything you want without consequences. Speech is still very much regulated, written press and broadcasting are regulated (differently), etc. You have laws that criminalize slander, market manipulation, etc. Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

comex 7y ago

It is a freedom of speech issue, at least from a US perspective. Whether newspapers can be held liable for inadvertently publishing false information was the exact issue at hand in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case which is one of the foundations of modern First Amendment jurisprudence. It held that, in almost all circumstances, they cannot.

close04 7y ago
I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. Inadvertent implies no intention, accidental. Bloomberg did zero due diligence with regard to this information, no attempt to validate it or the source was done before publishing. This resulted in market manipulation and that is punishable by law. Newspapers could always publish anything by just saying "I found it on the internet". Which is obviously not the case. The free speech and free press clauses protect public media as much as individual persons but what you say on social media will still be used against you. And talking about freedom of press, France doesn't look that bad at all. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
- comex 7y ago
  > I hope the fact that this happened in France doesn't throw a wrench in the reasoning. humanrebar wrote that if it had hypothetically occurred in the US, it would "push against the First Amendment". You quoted that phrase and replied that it "isn't a freedom of speech issue", which I interpreted as disputing the claim that it would hypothetically push against the First Amendment. I replied in that context. Whether it violates freedom of speech in a more abstract sense is, of course, subjective. I think that requiring the press to do some degree of due diligence is not unreasonable, but I also think there are advantages to the US's more deferential approach. As for the Press Freedom Index, I'm under no illusion that the US is perfect in that regard.

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

By that same logic, throwing someone in jail for insulting the President wouldn't be a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does indeed mean freedom from consequences for your speech - at least governmental consequences.

axlee 7y ago
If your speech negatively impacts another citizen, and your speech turned out to be all lies, you are absolutely liable for the consequences of it. The "government" is simply here to handle the arbitration.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Only under very specific and difficult-to-prove circumstances. These exceptions to freedom of speech are very narrowly carved out, and for good reason. The broader the exception, the easier it is to instrumentalize for political repression - and there will be a huge desire to do so.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
close04 7y ago
So is a threat to the President a freedom of speech issue? It was just speech. How about if you use such speech to manipulate the market? Or slander? Libel? Obscenity? Telling someone to kill themselves (spoiler alert: you may get convicted for involuntary manslaughter)? [0] In this case the fine was not for the speech but for the market manipulation. Saying "oh we were the victims of a hoax and just believed what a random site said" is not a defense. Case law obviously has plenty of precedent for consequences of free speech. Yes the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech and this is where all the confusion starts. Everybody has their own definition of freedom of speech. Most are wrong or uninformed [1]. Given that even the Supreme Court has varying opinions on this from time to time just says it's not an easy topic. No, you don't have a blank cheque for saying anything you want without consequences. Speech is still very much regulated, written press and broadcasting are regulated (differently), etc. You have laws that criminalize slander, market manipulation, etc. Your freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Conrad_Roy [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations