4 ms·

Criticizing the government is not lying. To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else. What

by jariel 5y ago

Criticizing the government is not lying. To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else. What we need are principled institutions that don't lie. Edit - adding a reference [1] "Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages." [1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-monkeys/suppression-free-expression-and-assembly-singapore https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-mon...

Barrin92 5y ago
You're not engaging my actual argument at all. Criticism of the government can obliviously be based on lies. It depends entirely on what your accusation is based on. Why is a court deciding on whether an accusation is true or not corrosive to freedom? Why is it corrosive to discourse? How do you have discourse without having an arbiter of truth? You don't just need principled institutions that don't lie, you need principled people that don't lie. Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? Why is a government official supposed to be punished if they lie to the public, but a person on Facebook isn't? In either case lies are undermining social trust. These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma.
- jariel 5y ago
  I'm engaging directly in your argument: "A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor with authoritarianism or lack of freedom." If the determination of the truth (i.e. what is a lie or not) is established by the 'authority', then there's no basis of credibility in your statement. It's naive to suggest we live in a magical world wherein the truth and falsehoods can easily be determined, or that statements can be even themselves deemed conclusive. "The Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud" "It looks like the Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud" "The Prime Minister was motivated to commit Fraud by this circumstance, and I suspect he did" Now tell me, which one of those is 'lies and slander'? How is the determination of 'fraud' even made? On the basis of a court ruling? How can someone speculate about malicious activity and do the reporting, the work which often leads to more material investigations in the first place, if it's illegal? "Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? " I didn't remotely say that or imply that, but 'institutions' - i.e. the Judiciary, the Press, Legislative, Bureaucracy, Academia are held to higher standard because there's a proportionality to their claims to legitimacy: if John Smith wants to say 'The PM is a fraud' - it means something different than when the 'Paper of Record' says 'John is a Fraud'. "These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma." Freedom of Expression is not a 'dogma' or a 'platitude' - it's fundamental to the well being of society which is why they are entrenched in every constitution of the modern age i.e. EU, Canada, USA etc..

by jariel 5y ago

Barrin92 5y ago

You're not engaging my actual argument at all. Criticism of the government can obliviously be based on lies. It depends entirely on what your accusation is based on. Why is a court deciding on whether an accusation is true or not corrosive to freedom? Why is it corrosive to discourse? How do you have discourse without having an arbiter of truth? You don't just need principled institutions that don't lie, you need principled people that don't lie. Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? Why is a government official supposed to be punished if they lie to the public, but a person on Facebook isn't? In either case lies are undermining social trust. These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma.

jariel 5y ago
I'm engaging directly in your argument: "A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor with authoritarianism or lack of freedom." If the determination of the truth (i.e. what is a lie or not) is established by the 'authority', then there's no basis of credibility in your statement. It's naive to suggest we live in a magical world wherein the truth and falsehoods can easily be determined, or that statements can be even themselves deemed conclusive. "The Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud" "It looks like the Prime Minister Engaged in Fraud" "The Prime Minister was motivated to commit Fraud by this circumstance, and I suspect he did" Now tell me, which one of those is 'lies and slander'? How is the determination of 'fraud' even made? On the basis of a court ruling? How can someone speculate about malicious activity and do the reporting, the work which often leads to more material investigations in the first place, if it's illegal? "Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? " I didn't remotely say that or imply that, but 'institutions' - i.e. the Judiciary, the Press, Legislative, Bureaucracy, Academia are held to higher standard because there's a proportionality to their claims to legitimacy: if John Smith wants to say 'The PM is a fraud' - it means something different than when the 'Paper of Record' says 'John is a Fraud'. "These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma." Freedom of Expression is not a 'dogma' or a 'platitude' - it's fundamental to the well being of society which is why they are entrenched in every constitution of the modern age i.e. EU, Canada, USA etc..