4 ms·

This should be a really short article: Because US media is legally allowed to lie on air. Make lying, or knowingly propagating information you know to be wron

by pluc 6y ago

This should be a really short article: Because US media is legally allowed to lie on air. Make lying, or knowingly propagating information you know to be wrong illegal - as it is in civilized countries - and the problem goes away. But you'd rather have guns and lies.

nostromo 6y ago
This isn’t true. Media orgs get sued all the time for defamation and libel.
- buu700 6y ago
  Defamation only applies when the lie is causing harm to a specific person. It's just a special case of lying. As far as I'm aware, there's no existing law in the US that would penalize lies (from the media or otherwise) in general. I don't see this as a particularly problematic idea. Assuming a high burden of proof, why shouldn't a deliberate hoax from a news organization be treated as a kind of fraud or "malpractice"? An alternate implementation would be for the FCC to regulate this and unilaterally issue fines for broadcasting fake news, but that seems ripe for abuse and more against the spirit of 1A. Instead, I like the idea that anyone (either the state or a private citizen) could sue any news outlet for publication of a hoax; not necessarily claiming any direct or personal harm caused, but just to defend the principle of truth. The process would be as fair as possible — requiring evidence of willful intent to the standards of a court of law, allowing appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, etc. — but in return the consequences would actually have teeth. Offhand, I'd say fines roughly comparable to securities fraud and a journalistic equivalent of disbarment for individuals responsible.
  - makomk 6y ago
    Yeah, and even when the lie is causing harm to a specific person, the U.S. media are mostly immune from libel lawsuits when that person is a public figure like a politician or business owner they're opposed to. Also when they turn that person into a public figure via their campaign of lying, I believe.
WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
The First Amendment is an enemy to that solution.
rhino369 6y ago
Banning lying means allowing the government to determine the truth. Many, if not all, dictatorships ban the truth under the guise of banning the truth.
- hayst4ck 6y ago
  I think that kind of depends on how it is enforced. If the government is defining an authoritative truth and enforcing it, I think that's definitely the authoritarian route that every American is taught is bad. If a jury of peers is determining that someone lied, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It can be illegal to lie on purpose without the government determining the truth or enforcing "the truth". The court system would almost certainly require that not only did an entity deliberately lie, but direct harm was caused that exceeds the harm done to freedom of speech. The US free speech system already divides speech into high value and low value speech. Political opinions in America are considered high value and are probably the most protected speech in the world. Do you think direct lies or manipulations should be considered high value speech? If you have a scale for "value of speech" that starts with illicit pornography on one end and political speech on the other, where would you put: "fire!" in a crowded theater, advertisements/commercial speech, opinions, direct lies, direct manipulation, medical lies (this sugar pill cures cancer), etc. What about labels on food. Should a company be able to list 0 calories on their ice cream? How much should this idea of "speech" be unbend-able, how narrowly or broadly should the word "speech" or "press" be defined? If we have a class like "food" that requires true nutrition labels to protect the integrity of food, and we have have scheduled medicines that require "active ingredients," to protect the integrity of medicine, why is the idea of news regulation to protect the integrity of news so provoking? There is no black and white when it comes to this issue. America's free speech almost lost us our democracy to an authoritarian who would have assuredly decreased our human rights and ended the idea of free speech. In philosophical terms, our free speech as it exists right now is very likely a "contradiction". If free speech exits to prevent authoritarian destruction of human rights, but it also allows for an authoritarian to seize power, is the basis of free speech in tact? How do you protect the integrity of the system?
  - pluc 6y ago
HideousKojima 6y ago
Who decides what is truth? I'll be keeping my guns and my ability to speak truths that the ruling government has classed as lies.
- pluc 6y ago
  Truth is truth, there's nobody that "decides" what truth is, truth can be verified not decided.
spikels 6y ago
Care to name a few of these “civilized countries” where the media can trusted due to laws against lying?
- pluc 6y ago
  Cana-duh

by pluc 6y ago

nostromo 6y ago

This isn’t true. Media orgs get sued all the time for defamation and libel.

buu700 6y ago
Defamation only applies when the lie is causing harm to a specific person. It's just a special case of lying. As far as I'm aware, there's no existing law in the US that would penalize lies (from the media or otherwise) in general. I don't see this as a particularly problematic idea. Assuming a high burden of proof, why shouldn't a deliberate hoax from a news organization be treated as a kind of fraud or "malpractice"? An alternate implementation would be for the FCC to regulate this and unilaterally issue fines for broadcasting fake news, but that seems ripe for abuse and more against the spirit of 1A. Instead, I like the idea that anyone (either the state or a private citizen) could sue any news outlet for publication of a hoax; not necessarily claiming any direct or personal harm caused, but just to defend the principle of truth. The process would be as fair as possible — requiring evidence of willful intent to the standards of a court of law, allowing appeals all the way up to the Supreme Court, etc. — but in return the consequences would actually have teeth. Offhand, I'd say fines roughly comparable to securities fraud and a journalistic equivalent of disbarment for individuals responsible.
- makomk 6y ago
  Yeah, and even when the lie is causing harm to a specific person, the U.S. media are mostly immune from libel lawsuits when that person is a public figure like a politician or business owner they're opposed to. Also when they turn that person into a public figure via their campaign of lying, I believe.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago

The First Amendment is an enemy to that solution.

rhino369 6y ago

Banning lying means allowing the government to determine the truth. Many, if not all, dictatorships ban the truth under the guise of banning the truth.

hayst4ck 6y ago
I think that kind of depends on how it is enforced. If the government is defining an authoritative truth and enforcing it, I think that's definitely the authoritarian route that every American is taught is bad. If a jury of peers is determining that someone lied, that seems pretty reasonable to me. It can be illegal to lie on purpose without the government determining the truth or enforcing "the truth". The court system would almost certainly require that not only did an entity deliberately lie, but direct harm was caused that exceeds the harm done to freedom of speech. The US free speech system already divides speech into high value and low value speech. Political opinions in America are considered high value and are probably the most protected speech in the world. Do you think direct lies or manipulations should be considered high value speech? If you have a scale for "value of speech" that starts with illicit pornography on one end and political speech on the other, where would you put: "fire!" in a crowded theater, advertisements/commercial speech, opinions, direct lies, direct manipulation, medical lies (this sugar pill cures cancer), etc. What about labels on food. Should a company be able to list 0 calories on their ice cream? How much should this idea of "speech" be unbend-able, how narrowly or broadly should the word "speech" or "press" be defined? If we have a class like "food" that requires true nutrition labels to protect the integrity of food, and we have have scheduled medicines that require "active ingredients," to protect the integrity of medicine, why is the idea of news regulation to protect the integrity of news so provoking? There is no black and white when it comes to this issue. America's free speech almost lost us our democracy to an authoritarian who would have assuredly decreased our human rights and ended the idea of free speech. In philosophical terms, our free speech as it exists right now is very likely a "contradiction". If free speech exits to prevent authoritarian destruction of human rights, but it also allows for an authoritarian to seize power, is the basis of free speech in tact? How do you protect the integrity of the system?
- pluc 6y ago

HideousKojima 6y ago

Who decides what is truth? I'll be keeping my guns and my ability to speak truths that the ruling government has classed as lies.

pluc 6y ago
Truth is truth, there's nobody that "decides" what truth is, truth can be verified not decided.

spikels 6y ago

Care to name a few of these “civilized countries” where the media can trusted due to laws against lying?

pluc 6y ago
Cana-duh