4 ms·

> This protection should be reserved for the truth. I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our

> This protection should be reserved for the truth. I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our present epistemological crisis.

robomartin 6y ago
Which is fine. My perspective is simple: If the matter being reported isn’t objectively true, move on and look for something else to report. We need less noise and more signal.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  I'm confused. Your post seems to indicate that what is "untrue" should not be constitutionally protected speech. That's a far cry from "move on and look for something else to report". My point is that I don't know how you establish a credible arbiter of what is and isn't protected speech in a world where most people's concept of what "true" and "untrue" are highly depends on their base political positions.
  - robomartin 6y ago
    What I am saying is that lies should not be protected by the US constitution. One ought to be responsible for the consequences of speech. We are, citizens are. We have freedom of speech, yet the constitution does not protect us from the consequences of what we say as individuals. There are two groups who are allowed to lie with impunity: the press and politicians. This is wrong. And I posit it is particularly wrong in the case of the press. Here's the way I look at it: We grant the press the right protections from government intervention. This is good and we should definitely do it. We want them to work for us, to keep us informed and provide us with access to the truth. The phrase "Speaking truth to power" has a real meaning. It isn't "Fabricating and lying to power". We recognize this right in the constitution because knowing the truth is crucially important. Lies are not helpful and are usually destructive, as the current political mess clearly demonstrates. My "move on and look for something else to report" comment is a simple way of saying that: If the press can't back a story to the degree necessary to consider it truthful, they should move on and report on something else. Constantly broadcasting lies isn't useful to anyone. There are plenty of other stories to report on. I mean, some of the things "journalists" are saying on TV are down-right vile. If you or I said and printed such things about people or groups of people we would lose everything we own in a massive defamation lawsuit. The media and politicians suffer no consequences for, quite literally, at times, utterly destroying the lives of people with lies. That is objectively wrong and should not be protected by a the US constitution.

> This protection should be reserved for the truth. I think this is literally impossible to credibly establish in a political/legal context, especially in our present epistemological crisis.

robomartin 6y ago

Which is fine. My perspective is simple: If the matter being reported isn’t objectively true, move on and look for something else to report. We need less noise and more signal.

DubiousPusher 6y ago
I'm confused. Your post seems to indicate that what is "untrue" should not be constitutionally protected speech. That's a far cry from "move on and look for something else to report". My point is that I don't know how you establish a credible arbiter of what is and isn't protected speech in a world where most people's concept of what "true" and "untrue" are highly depends on their base political positions.
- robomartin 6y ago
  What I am saying is that lies should not be protected by the US constitution. One ought to be responsible for the consequences of speech. We are, citizens are. We have freedom of speech, yet the constitution does not protect us from the consequences of what we say as individuals. There are two groups who are allowed to lie with impunity: the press and politicians. This is wrong. And I posit it is particularly wrong in the case of the press. Here's the way I look at it: We grant the press the right protections from government intervention. This is good and we should definitely do it. We want them to work for us, to keep us informed and provide us with access to the truth. The phrase "Speaking truth to power" has a real meaning. It isn't "Fabricating and lying to power". We recognize this right in the constitution because knowing the truth is crucially important. Lies are not helpful and are usually destructive, as the current political mess clearly demonstrates. My "move on and look for something else to report" comment is a simple way of saying that: If the press can't back a story to the degree necessary to consider it truthful, they should move on and report on something else. Constantly broadcasting lies isn't useful to anyone. There are plenty of other stories to report on. I mean, some of the things "journalists" are saying on TV are down-right vile. If you or I said and printed such things about people or groups of people we would lose everything we own in a massive defamation lawsuit. The media and politicians suffer no consequences for, quite literally, at times, utterly destroying the lives of people with lies. That is objectively wrong and should not be protected by a the US constitution.