3 ms·

>In another, I’m introduced as the head of the “UK bioweapons programme”, being caught admitting that the Covid vaccine could somehow destroy your immune system

>In another, I’m introduced as the head of the “UK bioweapons programme”, being caught admitting that the Covid vaccine could somehow destroy your immune system. Opinions are undoubtedly protected by free speech(both the concept and the laws), but should misinformation like this be protected by free speech laws as well? Or can we carve out a narrow exception for just blatantly lying and writing fake news, like we already do in libel laws and in cases of phishing and fraud? It feels like whenever this comes people seems to confuse opinions vs misinformation, whether intentionally or not, which serves their point. I wrote about this a few days ago about how Reddit Inc. did that recently. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426181 Why can't we separate the two, both in discussions and in laws?

hammock 5y ago
>but should misinformation like this be protected by free speech laws as well? Ask Copernicus or Galileo?
- belltaco 5y ago
  The court system has come a long way since then, and does not usually enforce religious doctrine. If the next Copernicus or Galileo among the people writing fake news e.g. [1], [2], [3] presents evidence for their assertions being plausible, and the prosecution fails to prove their assertion was impossible then I doubt a judge would against them. That's why I said narrowly written, to get the worst, repetitive and most obvious examples to stop, not cast a wide net. E.g. [3] [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of... [2] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/ [3] https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/verify-was-clinton-foundation-cargo-ship-raided-at-port-of-baltimore/65-439392715 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/verify-was-clinton-...
- mthoms 5y ago
  Well, they had reproducible scientific tests to provide their theories didn’t they? Seems like a slam dunk in todays world that they would be taken seriously. At least by the majority of rational people. Though I get the point you were trying to make, the fact that you gave two scientists as examples is deliciously ironic.
  - tzs 5y ago
    > Well, they had reproducible scientific tests to provide their theories didn’t they? Not really. The heliocentric systems of Copernicus and Galileo didn't do much better at predicting heavenly motion than did the earlier geocentric systems such as the Ptolemaic system. They were still largely implicitly based on the assumption of an intelligent creator (God) who would make the universe follow laws that were aesthetically pleasing geometrically/mathematically. Any observations that didn't fit the pleasing laws of a theorist's theory were dismissed as some kind of observational error or some kind of optical illusion or some such. Galileo's trouble with the Church wasn't due to heliocentrism per se. The Church's position at the time was that if some empirical observation of the world (which God made) clearly contradicted their interpretation of something in the Bible it must be because they misinterpreted that part of the Bible. Galileo's trouble was more due him being a genius who was also a major asshole with a big ego and a poor sense of politics. His genius brought fame, which brought him to the attention of the rich and powerful. His ego fed on their attention, loving to play the roll of the celebrity. His ego also led him to be an asshole to people he considered lesser or his rivals. And his poor sense of politics made him clueless that some of those "lesser" people had a lot of political power and could make his life miserable if he kept being an asshole to them.
jwond 5y ago
> should misinformation like this be protected by free speech laws as well? Or can we carve out a narrow exception for just blatantly lying and writing fake news, like we already do in libel laws and in cases of phishing and fraud? Who do you trust to act as the arbiter of truth? I could maybe get on board if it was required to prove that the accused was spreading information that they personally knew was not true, and that there was actual harm done, but even then I have little faith that such a law would not be abused in some way. There is no way I would be on board with making it illegal to spread certain information simply because some entity decided to label it “misinformation”. We’ve already seen that things can very quickly change from “misinformation” to plausible theory worthy of serious consideration, e.g. the COVID lab leak theory.

hammock 5y ago

>but should misinformation like this be protected by free speech laws as well? Ask Copernicus or Galileo?

belltaco 5y ago
The court system has come a long way since then, and does not usually enforce religious doctrine. If the next Copernicus or Galileo among the people writing fake news e.g. [1], [2], [3] presents evidence for their assertions being plausible, and the prosecution fails to prove their assertion was impossible then I doubt a judge would against them. That's why I said narrowly written, to get the worst, repetitive and most obvious examples to stop, not cast a wide net. E.g. [3] [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of_fake_news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/the_godfather_of... [2] https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/veles-macedonia-fake-news/ [3] https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/verify-was-clinton-foundation-cargo-ship-raided-at-port-of-baltimore/65-439392715 https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/verify-was-clinton-...
mthoms 5y ago
Well, they had reproducible scientific tests to provide their theories didn’t they? Seems like a slam dunk in todays world that they would be taken seriously. At least by the majority of rational people. Though I get the point you were trying to make, the fact that you gave two scientists as examples is deliciously ironic.
- tzs 5y ago
  > Well, they had reproducible scientific tests to provide their theories didn’t they? Not really. The heliocentric systems of Copernicus and Galileo didn't do much better at predicting heavenly motion than did the earlier geocentric systems such as the Ptolemaic system. They were still largely implicitly based on the assumption of an intelligent creator (God) who would make the universe follow laws that were aesthetically pleasing geometrically/mathematically. Any observations that didn't fit the pleasing laws of a theorist's theory were dismissed as some kind of observational error or some kind of optical illusion or some such. Galileo's trouble with the Church wasn't due to heliocentrism per se. The Church's position at the time was that if some empirical observation of the world (which God made) clearly contradicted their interpretation of something in the Bible it must be because they misinterpreted that part of the Bible. Galileo's trouble was more due him being a genius who was also a major asshole with a big ego and a poor sense of politics. His genius brought fame, which brought him to the attention of the rich and powerful. His ego fed on their attention, loving to play the roll of the celebrity. His ego also led him to be an asshole to people he considered lesser or his rivals. And his poor sense of politics made him clueless that some of those "lesser" people had a lot of political power and could make his life miserable if he kept being an asshole to them.

jwond 5y ago

> should misinformation like this be protected by free speech laws as well? Or can we carve out a narrow exception for just blatantly lying and writing fake news, like we already do in libel laws and in cases of phishing and fraud? Who do you trust to act as the arbiter of truth? I could maybe get on board if it was required to prove that the accused was spreading information that they personally knew was not true, and that there was actual harm done, but even then I have little faith that such a law would not be abused in some way. There is no way I would be on board with making it illegal to spread certain information simply because some entity decided to label it “misinformation”. We’ve already seen that things can very quickly change from “misinformation” to plausible theory worthy of serious consideration, e.g. the COVID lab leak theory.