3 ms·

Lying to defraud someone is illegal because they don't have full consent, but lying to make someone misvote is not because...they do have full consent. I don't

Lying to defraud someone is illegal because they don't have full consent, but lying to make someone misvote is not because...they do have full consent. I don't follow. If you lie to me and I end up signing a contract that benefits you vs. if you lie to me and I end up signing a ballot that benefits you. Where's the difference? I'm not going to touch this analogy, it's in bad taste and doesn't elucidate anything.

LoSboccacc 6y ago
the definition of fraud follows the laws, not logic. laws aren't uniform and crime equipotent, because they model a trade-off between societal, communal and individual damage, plus a great deal of unfairness from certain topic being propped up by politicians or special interests groups
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  In this thread we're discussing why the law is the way it is (with the subtext that, perhaps, we should modify it). Saying that "the law is this way because that's the way the law is" is circular. Which is what I was getting at when I said "But again, this is just the status quo" a few posts upthread. To make the question more explicit: why should the non-legal, but supposedly fundamental, right to "freedom of expression" protect your ability to lie to me about a political candidate, but not a contract?
redis_mlc 6y ago
> if you lie to me and I end up signing a ballot that benefits you. Where's the difference? From time-to-time, this comes up in newspaper court reporting. US law recognizes that politicians can change their opinions, and that proving their state of mind at some point in time is pointless and unworkable. So you're confusing morality with political statements, according to our courts. IOW, you're being an HN pedant.
unishark 6y ago
The stealing is what makes it a crime, not the personal benefit. If you rob someone solely to the benefit of your favorite charity, you still robbed someone. I would assume explicit actions like mislabeling ballots or actually changing someone's vote on them is a crime. Perhaps even tricking people about polling place locations or the party of candidates. But it's obviously very dangerous ground once you venture multiple degrees of freedom off into policing conspiracy theories or political ads, given the risks of abuse. It should be just as hard as to convict people for murder via such distant effects. Especially since in voting, people have access to alternative views, including yours.
- FranzFerdiNaN 6y ago
  This is typical of capitalist thought: property is sacrosanct, voting is worth nothing.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  But it's still fraud even if you don't steal anything. Lying on a job application is fraud, even if you ultimately do the job perfectly well. So why is lying on a job application for the purpose of getting a job illegal, unless that job is an elected position? (note that lying on behalf of someone else to help them get a job is also fraud, so the same question could be asked of someone lying on behalf of or in support of a candidate)

LoSboccacc 6y ago

the definition of fraud follows the laws, not logic. laws aren't uniform and crime equipotent, because they model a trade-off between societal, communal and individual damage, plus a great deal of unfairness from certain topic being propped up by politicians or special interests groups

joshuamorton 6y ago
In this thread we're discussing why the law is the way it is (with the subtext that, perhaps, we should modify it). Saying that "the law is this way because that's the way the law is" is circular. Which is what I was getting at when I said "But again, this is just the status quo" a few posts upthread. To make the question more explicit: why should the non-legal, but supposedly fundamental, right to "freedom of expression" protect your ability to lie to me about a political candidate, but not a contract?

redis_mlc 6y ago

> if you lie to me and I end up signing a ballot that benefits you. Where's the difference? From time-to-time, this comes up in newspaper court reporting. US law recognizes that politicians can change their opinions, and that proving their state of mind at some point in time is pointless and unworkable. So you're confusing morality with political statements, according to our courts. IOW, you're being an HN pedant.

unishark 6y ago

The stealing is what makes it a crime, not the personal benefit. If you rob someone solely to the benefit of your favorite charity, you still robbed someone. I would assume explicit actions like mislabeling ballots or actually changing someone's vote on them is a crime. Perhaps even tricking people about polling place locations or the party of candidates. But it's obviously very dangerous ground once you venture multiple degrees of freedom off into policing conspiracy theories or political ads, given the risks of abuse. It should be just as hard as to convict people for murder via such distant effects. Especially since in voting, people have access to alternative views, including yours.

FranzFerdiNaN 6y ago
This is typical of capitalist thought: property is sacrosanct, voting is worth nothing.
joshuamorton 6y ago
But it's still fraud even if you don't steal anything. Lying on a job application is fraud, even if you ultimately do the job perfectly well. So why is lying on a job application for the purpose of getting a job illegal, unless that job is an elected position? (note that lying on behalf of someone else to help them get a job is also fraud, so the same question could be asked of someone lying on behalf of or in support of a candidate)