6 ms·

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of fake news media without anyone ever inciting violence. They simply need to repeat over and over that the ele

by garg 6y ago

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of fake news media without anyone ever inciting violence. They simply need to repeat over and over that the election was stolen and that caused the violence and people died. Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal and no one is inciting violence in that situation either. There are many commonalities between broadcasting fake news for profit and propaganda, and incorrectly yelling fire in a crowd. Both end up resulting in public safety hazards. It is a difficult problem to deal with because there is always the possibility of corruption and a reduction in genuine free speech when there is regulation involved. But it is a problem that has to be solved. It is also no longer social media only, it is Fox, OANN, NewsMax, Sinclair, etc that are increasingly filling up air time with lies solely to make a buck.

dnissley 6y ago
> But it is a problem that has to be solved. Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking.
- Retric 6y ago
  Do you have any other options? I don’t care who solves it, but when a company is run for the intent to produce propaganda it’s pointless to ask them to self regulate.
  - dnissley 6y ago
    There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge. We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions. I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because we've never had to deal with anything like them before on such a wide scale. It seems perfectly possible to me that over time we will develop social standards that immunize us from these viruses. More and more people will begin to disregard clickbait, outrage-inducing headlines, etc. They will simply become less salient the more and more we experience them. Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conversation about a solution.
    - Retric 6y ago
      So in other words no, but you don’t think it’s a long term problem? I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        > I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response. Its your faith in humanity that's "refreshing" if you think giving the people with the guns the power to police speech is the proper solution.
        Retric 6y ago
        Don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t suggest government regulation of speech. Though I will admit debate rules where each side gets equal time back to back to be somewhat humorous. That’s mostly my love of chaos and the spectacle of such an idea.
        rayiner 6y ago
        Apologies, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpreted the following: dnissley: "Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking." Retric: "Do you have any other options?"
        Retric 6y ago
        Odd, I was initially thinking in terms of a non governmental organization to regulate the terms Reporter and News much like how Doctor is a protected. But, that doesn’t seem viable.
        rayiner 6y ago
- garg 6y ago
  In my previous comment, I am roughly equating incorrectly yelling fire in a crowded theater with broadcasting fake news to millions of people. If there were a way to clearly differentiate between free speech and fake news, then yes, I would support legal ramifications for spreading blatant intentional fake news created solely as profitable propaganda that causes harm, and treating that as intentionally lying about fire in a crowd. I don't know what the best organization or process for setting that up would be. After a certain number of complaints, can we transparently look into the owners of the news media, their revenue streams, their involvement with foreign governments, to determine whether a company is a legitimate news source or not? Can we get non-profits and media-freedom watchdogs involved to ensure fairness? Can we get the fairness doctrine running again? I don't see why not.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
slowmovintarget 6y ago
The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol. That is decidedly not a social media thing. Social media gave him the mob, but it was a man with a podium that incited the action.
- thrwaway2day 6y ago
  > The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol. If true, this would be much more convincing with a direct quotation and a source, rather than your interpretation.
  - slowmovintarget 6y ago
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...
    - meragrin_ 6y ago
      > we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. > I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-s...
PixyMisa 6y ago
> Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal No it's not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
- garg 6y ago
  It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example. Edit: People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct: > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. > Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)
  - Dracophoenix 6y ago
    And "speech brigaded with action" would still have to pass the muster of being "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". One would have to prove a criminal element (almost always a mens rea) in addition to such speech rather than holding the presumption that the words themselves carry a distinguishing factor among other things. You're right to say it's prosecutable (although technically anything is prosecutable), however what you appear to allude to (and I could be wrong in assuming that of your claim) is that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is prima facie unprotected speech. If so, then that hasn't been true since the Brandenburg test was instituted.
InfiniteBeing 6y ago
Meanwhile the left dominated media was a major enflamer of the violence of BLM and Antifa.

by garg 6y ago

dnissley 6y ago

> But it is a problem that has to be solved. Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking.

Retric 6y ago
Do you have any other options? I don’t care who solves it, but when a company is run for the intent to produce propaganda it’s pointless to ask them to self regulate.
- dnissley 6y ago
  There is always the option to let the issue sort itself out. To allow space and time for a solution to emerge. We should be careful not to fall into action bias. E.g. the thought that we need to do something, anything, since that can lead to counterproductive solutions. I've begun to look at information problems like this not too differently than viruses of thought. Right now these viruses are running rampant because we've never had to deal with anything like them before on such a wide scale. It seems perfectly possible to me that over time we will develop social standards that immunize us from these viruses. More and more people will begin to disregard clickbait, outrage-inducing headlines, etc. They will simply become less salient the more and more we experience them. Reframing the question at hand around this metaphor: What would an effective vaccine look like for these thought viruses? I'm not at all sure, but I can't imagine any kind of partisan response that would work, since these viruses infect left and right alike, and many people will bend over backwards to argue otherwise. Until we can face that fact honestly, I don't see how we could even begin to have a productive conversation about a solution.
  - Retric 6y ago
    So in other words no, but you don’t think it’s a long term problem? I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      > I honestly think your fath in humanity is refreshing. Personally, I think this is just reversion to the mean where simply lying was historically the most common response. Its your faith in humanity that's "refreshing" if you think giving the people with the guns the power to police speech is the proper solution.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Don’t put words in my mouth, I didn’t suggest government regulation of speech. Though I will admit debate rules where each side gets equal time back to back to be somewhat humorous. That’s mostly my love of chaos and the spectacle of such an idea.
        rayiner 6y ago
        Apologies, didn't mean to put words in your mouth, but that's how I interpreted the following: dnissley: "Do you think the solution should come from the government? It seems implied here but just checking." Retric: "Do you have any other options?"
        Retric 6y ago
        Odd, I was initially thinking in terms of a non governmental organization to regulate the terms Reporter and News much like how Doctor is a protected. But, that doesn’t seem viable.
        rayiner 6y ago
garg 6y ago
In my previous comment, I am roughly equating incorrectly yelling fire in a crowded theater with broadcasting fake news to millions of people. If there were a way to clearly differentiate between free speech and fake news, then yes, I would support legal ramifications for spreading blatant intentional fake news created solely as profitable propaganda that causes harm, and treating that as intentionally lying about fire in a crowd. I don't know what the best organization or process for setting that up would be. After a certain number of complaints, can we transparently look into the owners of the news media, their revenue streams, their involvement with foreign governments, to determine whether a company is a legitimate news source or not? Can we get non-profits and media-freedom watchdogs involved to ensure fairness? Can we get the fairness doctrine running again? I don't see why not.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

slowmovintarget 6y ago

The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol. That is decidedly not a social media thing. Social media gave him the mob, but it was a man with a podium that incited the action.

thrwaway2day 6y ago
> The violent attack on the capitol was the result of the sitting President of the United States claiming the election was stolen and telling them to march on the capitol. If true, this would be much more convincing with a direct quotation and a source, rather than your interpretation.
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/24/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolutio...
  - meragrin_ 6y ago
    > we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. > I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-s...

PixyMisa 6y ago

> Incorrectly yelling Fire in a crowded theater is illegal No it's not. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

garg 6y ago
It was made more specific in Brandenburg v. Ohio but it was not overturned. ie, if someone is falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater which is "speech brigaded with action" then it is a situation where a person could be prosecuted for speech. They used that very example. Edit: People can read it themselves: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Fire in a crowded theater is specifically mentioned as the sort of case in which a person could be prosecuted for speech.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Why was this downvoted? garg is quite plainly correct: > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. > Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. This couldn't be more explicit in saying that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a prosecutable offense. (As long as an injury occurred.)
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  And "speech brigaded with action" would still have to pass the muster of being "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action". One would have to prove a criminal element (almost always a mens rea) in addition to such speech rather than holding the presumption that the words themselves carry a distinguishing factor among other things. You're right to say it's prosecutable (although technically anything is prosecutable), however what you appear to allude to (and I could be wrong in assuming that of your claim) is that "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is prima facie unprotected speech. If so, then that hasn't been true since the Brandenburg test was instituted.

InfiniteBeing 6y ago

Meanwhile the left dominated media was a major enflamer of the violence of BLM and Antifa.