4 ms·

There must be repercussions for lies. There must be. It's not a free speech issue.

jandrese 6y ago
This has come up before for Fox News in the courts. They won. Because they are not a news channel and only air opinion pieces they aren't subject to the Fairness Doctrine. Also, Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine so it doesn't really matter. Basically Fox is free to lie as much as they like and it's perfectly legal because some politicians found it to be beneficial. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-... https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion-commentators-entertainment-dont-really-847106 https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspaper_n_5c651a10e4b0233af971861e?guccounter=1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspa... Any time a Fox News host is pressed about their lies they fall back to the "nobody would believe these obvious lies" defense, and it works. Accountability is dead.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Ah, so glad that only one side lies. So nice of the other side to keep telling us constantly. Wonderful how we can trust big brother on everything.
  - jandrese 6y ago
    The whatabboutism sure came quick. Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first then deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you thought the denial would look silly? Also, put up or shut up. Find a legal case where an NBC, ABC, PBS, Washington Post, NYT, etc... reporter uses the "I only broadcast opinions so the truth doesn't matter" defense. I'm waiting.
    - barbacoa 6y ago
      No intension to get caught in a partisan flame war. I think both sides are pretty biased. MSNBC was sued for slander a little while back when Rachel Maddow said OAN (a right wing news organization) “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” That turned out not to be factually correct. MSNBC lawyers successful argued that what she said was just her opinion and didn't actually represent a factual statement.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Or did she say it one time?
        barbacoa 6y ago
        >>So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Yes, literally. https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-see...
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        What I am willing to believe from a researching like Maddow is quite a different set of conclusions than what I think could be proven in court. Sources, evidence standards, procedures, etc. all designed to preserve rights are not the same environment as academic investigation.
- gwbrooks 6y ago
  It's questionable whether the Fairness Doctrine was ever an issue. It was originally established because the government owned the airwaves and leased them to broadcasters -- like a landlord, they could have standards. But the doctrine never applied to print publishers because the government didn't have a similar stake in that medium. Given that cable companies and the wires they use are all private, it seems unlikely they could be restricted under a revised Fairness Doctrine without running into 1A issues.
treeman79 6y ago
When government decides a group must be punished then bad things happen. Genocide, civil war, etc. http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holocaust-shoah/holocaust-the-basics/the-reasons-for-the-holocaust.html http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holo...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- isbadawi 6y ago
  The government decides all the time that some people should be punished. It's the justice system.
gwbrooks 6y ago
Traditionally, the repercussion for lying was loss of reputation/business/relationships. It didn't always work that way, of course, but it was a moderately effective dynamic overall. What's new now is that everyone's ability to create a network (and leverage network effects) via social media is tremendously amplified. That means both a reward system for embracing lies as long as the lies agree with in-group beliefs, and a greatly increased ability to spread them. Congress can't legislate that media (or Karen on Twitter for that matter) has to tell the truth -- that's a pretty well established point of law and you'd likely need to amend the Constitution if you wanted wholesale, mandated change. Against the backdrop of that not-gonna-happen-in-our-lifetime heavy lift, the boomlet in deplatforming is actually a pretty good (although I personally dislike it) and organic solution. Private-sector actors are doing what Congress and the Court cannot. Now, does it solve for the dopamine drip and self-reinforcing vitriol that caused our current problem? No. But it does, at least partially, quarantine it.
triceratops 6y ago
> There must be repercussions for lies Nah that's cancel culture. /s
Nasrudith 6y ago
That populist soundbyte has been spreading like a virus but I have yet to see any elaboration let alone a coherent plan. What consequences, and how would it be remotely constitutional? Boycott those who advertise on Fox News? Sure - that is well within your rights of freedom of association. Libel to the typical standards of actual malice for public figures sure. Outlawing "lies"? There are so many things wrong with that. Forget the zeitgeist and imagine what your worst enemies or worst people in history could do with such tools and deciding what counts as a lie. 'Fake news' punishments for pointing out the lack of evidence of hydroxychloroquine as effective for COVID-19.
dmatech 6y ago
The lies need to do demonstrable harm to someone (and be about that someone) in order for it to be defamation. Lies that just "make the world a worse place" are much harder to deal with. For instance, in the Snyder v. Phelps case, all sorts of nasty (and probably untrue) things were said, yet SCOTUS ruled in favor of Phelps.
pie_flavor 6y ago
Emperor Trump thinks this is a great idea, and institutes a Department of Truth to decide what is true and prosecute liars. For example, if someone makes the baseless lie that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, they're going to be looking at some jail time. Yes. It absolutely is a free speech issue. In fact, criticism of the government, e.g. election processes, is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.

This has come up before for Fox News in the courts. They won. Because they are not a news channel and only air opinion pieces they aren't subject to the Fairness Doctrine. Also, Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine so it doesn't really matter. Basically Fox is free to lie as much as they like and it's perfectly legal because some politicians found it to be beneficial. https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-... https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion-commentators-entertainment-dont-really-847106 https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspaper_n_5c651a10e4b0233af971861e?guccounter=1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspa... Any time a Fox News host is pressed about their lies they fall back to the "nobody would believe these obvious lies" defense, and it works. Accountability is dead.

treeman79 6y ago
Ah, so glad that only one side lies. So nice of the other side to keep telling us constantly. Wonderful how we can trust big brother on everything.
- jandrese 6y ago
  The whatabboutism sure came quick. Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first then deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you thought the denial would look silly? Also, put up or shut up. Find a legal case where an NBC, ABC, PBS, Washington Post, NYT, etc... reporter uses the "I only broadcast opinions so the truth doesn't matter" defense. I'm waiting.
  - barbacoa 6y ago
    No intension to get caught in a partisan flame war. I think both sides are pretty biased. MSNBC was sued for slander a little while back when Rachel Maddow said OAN (a right wing news organization) “really literally is paid Russian propaganda.” That turned out not to be factually correct. MSNBC lawyers successful argued that what she said was just her opinion and didn't actually represent a factual statement.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Or did she say it one time?
      - barbacoa 6y ago
        >>So did Rachel Maddow devote hours and hours of air time repeating her conspiracy theory over and over and bring on multiple supposed experts to also reassert the claim even after it was debunked? Yes, literally. https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/ https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-see...
        spacemanmatt 6y ago
        What I am willing to believe from a researching like Maddow is quite a different set of conclusions than what I think could be proven in court. Sources, evidence standards, procedures, etc. all designed to preserve rights are not the same environment as academic investigation.
gwbrooks 6y ago
It's questionable whether the Fairness Doctrine was ever an issue. It was originally established because the government owned the airwaves and leased them to broadcasters -- like a landlord, they could have standards. But the doctrine never applied to print publishers because the government didn't have a similar stake in that medium. Given that cable companies and the wires they use are all private, it seems unlikely they could be restricted under a revised Fairness Doctrine without running into 1A issues.

treeman79 6y ago

When government decides a group must be punished then bad things happen. Genocide, civil war, etc. http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holocaust-shoah/holocaust-the-basics/the-reasons-for-the-holocaust.html http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holo...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
isbadawi 6y ago
The government decides all the time that some people should be punished. It's the justice system.

gwbrooks 6y ago

Traditionally, the repercussion for lying was loss of reputation/business/relationships. It didn't always work that way, of course, but it was a moderately effective dynamic overall. What's new now is that everyone's ability to create a network (and leverage network effects) via social media is tremendously amplified. That means both a reward system for embracing lies as long as the lies agree with in-group beliefs, and a greatly increased ability to spread them. Congress can't legislate that media (or Karen on Twitter for that matter) has to tell the truth -- that's a pretty well established point of law and you'd likely need to amend the Constitution if you wanted wholesale, mandated change. Against the backdrop of that not-gonna-happen-in-our-lifetime heavy lift, the boomlet in deplatforming is actually a pretty good (although I personally dislike it) and organic solution. Private-sector actors are doing what Congress and the Court cannot. Now, does it solve for the dopamine drip and self-reinforcing vitriol that caused our current problem? No. But it does, at least partially, quarantine it.

triceratops 6y ago

> There must be repercussions for lies Nah that's cancel culture. /s

Nasrudith 6y ago

That populist soundbyte has been spreading like a virus but I have yet to see any elaboration let alone a coherent plan. What consequences, and how would it be remotely constitutional? Boycott those who advertise on Fox News? Sure - that is well within your rights of freedom of association. Libel to the typical standards of actual malice for public figures sure. Outlawing "lies"? There are so many things wrong with that. Forget the zeitgeist and imagine what your worst enemies or worst people in history could do with such tools and deciding what counts as a lie. 'Fake news' punishments for pointing out the lack of evidence of hydroxychloroquine as effective for COVID-19.

dmatech 6y ago

The lies need to do demonstrable harm to someone (and be about that someone) in order for it to be defamation. Lies that just "make the world a worse place" are much harder to deal with. For instance, in the Snyder v. Phelps case, all sorts of nasty (and probably untrue) things were said, yet SCOTUS ruled in favor of Phelps.

pie_flavor 6y ago

Emperor Trump thinks this is a great idea, and institutes a Department of Truth to decide what is true and prosecute liars. For example, if someone makes the baseless lie that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, they're going to be looking at some jail time. Yes. It absolutely is a free speech issue. In fact, criticism of the government, e.g. election processes, is specifically mentioned in the First Amendment.