6 ms·

> While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding inc

> While the legislation has raised concerns over freedom of speech, the bill’s sponsors said the extensive harm caused by false information required holding incompetent or ill-intentioned doctors accountable. There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech.

anigbrowl 4y ago
- Hi everybody! - Hi Dr Nick!
- tanseydavid 4y ago
  Simpsons reference?
0xChain 4y ago
Agree with this statement. The problem now becomes not a choice of what to believe, but what you’re told to believe.
deep-root 4y ago
Not sure how this is would be so different from how we treat forms of speech such as pergury, libel, and treason.
- choko 4y ago
  Because objective truth isn't obvious in many cases where events are still unfolding perhaps?
dahart 4y ago
False statements of fact are not protected under free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
  The issue is who decides what is false. Will people be prosecuted for saying true things that the state says is false? It's not like the state would lie about something.
- abernard1 4y ago
  Ummm... yeah they are. You're referencing defamation law and contract law. In the case of defamation, you can't be defamed if what the person said is true. And in case of contract law or fraud, lies impact the integrity of a transaction. In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech.
  - dahart 4y ago
    > You’re referencing defamation law and contract law. Why do you think this? The WP article is about a general exception to the constitutional right to freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. It happens to mention some defamation and contract precedent, but if you read it, it’s quite clear the exception is broader than those two cases and not limited to defamation and contracts. It even gives several other categorical examples (such as incitement and slander), so you seem to have gotten the wrong idea. > In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech. As a summary of the issue, this is mostly false and rather misleading. It’s certainly bad advice in any case. ;) You can choose to lie a lot and you might not get in trouble, but if you knowingly lie about things that materially affect other people, you’re probably not protected in the free speech sense. However the only way to be sure is to go to court, and most people who lie don’t end up in court.
- peteradio 4y ago
  Tut tut, not all false statements of fact are protected, while some are. Your statement is overly broad as to be a false statement of fact.
  - dahart 4y ago
    Good grief. I linked to an article describing the exception and the exceptions to the exception. This exception to free speech is widely titled, cited, and summarized as the “false statements of fact exception” to free speech. It’s a name, not a complete description, which is why I provided one version of a complete description that has links to all sources.
kadoban 4y ago
> There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given trust due to your station, abusing that trust should be punished.
- romeros 4y ago
  The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter.
  - kadoban 4y ago
    > For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter. They should not be punished if they are honestly wrong and are attempting to find the truth (or of course if they're actually right). They should be punished if they are actively spreading disinformation, meaning they know or should know that it's incorrect. We currently have a _lot_ of people spreading disinformation because it pads their pocketbook.
  - tragictrash 4y ago
    I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right. Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise people questioning existing mainstream views, only the ones spouting horribly incorrect information. Noone is saying it will do that, other than you and other commenters who didnt read the article. Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?
anigbrowl 4y ago
A facile argument. By this logic fraud would be unprosecutable.

anigbrowl 4y ago

- Hi everybody! - Hi Dr Nick!

tanseydavid 4y ago
Simpsons reference?

0xChain 4y ago

Agree with this statement. The problem now becomes not a choice of what to believe, but what you’re told to believe.

deep-root 4y ago

Not sure how this is would be so different from how we treat forms of speech such as pergury, libel, and treason.

choko 4y ago
Because objective truth isn't obvious in many cases where events are still unfolding perhaps?

dahart 4y ago

False statements of fact are not protected under free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#False_statements_of_fact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
The issue is who decides what is false. Will people be prosecuted for saying true things that the state says is false? It's not like the state would lie about something.
abernard1 4y ago
Ummm... yeah they are. You're referencing defamation law and contract law. In the case of defamation, you can't be defamed if what the person said is true. And in case of contract law or fraud, lies impact the integrity of a transaction. In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech.
- dahart 4y ago
  > You’re referencing defamation law and contract law. Why do you think this? The WP article is about a general exception to the constitutional right to freedom of speech, though it is not absolute. It happens to mention some defamation and contract precedent, but if you read it, it’s quite clear the exception is broader than those two cases and not limited to defamation and contracts. It even gives several other categorical examples (such as incitement and slander), so you seem to have gotten the wrong idea. > In the US, you can lie as much as you want with general speech. As a summary of the issue, this is mostly false and rather misleading. It’s certainly bad advice in any case. ;) You can choose to lie a lot and you might not get in trouble, but if you knowingly lie about things that materially affect other people, you’re probably not protected in the free speech sense. However the only way to be sure is to go to court, and most people who lie don’t end up in court.
peteradio 4y ago
Tut tut, not all false statements of fact are protected, while some are. Your statement is overly broad as to be a false statement of fact.
- dahart 4y ago
  Good grief. I linked to an article describing the exception and the exceptions to the exception. This exception to free speech is widely titled, cited, and summarized as the “false statements of fact exception” to free speech. It’s a name, not a complete description, which is why I provided one version of a complete description that has links to all sources.

kadoban 4y ago

> There was no addressing the actual issue in this statement. If you're arguing an issue falls under free speech, then the response of "OK, but it's really bad" doesn't change the free-ness of the speech. There are no rights that are absolute. You can have a right of free speech and still not be allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Additionally, being an expert comes with some responsibility. You are given trust due to your station, abusing that trust should be punished.

romeros 4y ago
The assumption is that the expert is wrong. Frequently some experts who hold contrarian opinions which are against the mainstream narrative are usually vindicated with time. For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter.
- kadoban 4y ago
  > For instance lets say CDC recommends people to wash their hands with water/sanitizer. There is a group of experts who question the efficacy of it. These experts should not be punished. Least of by layman/politicians/lawmakers/noobs who have no clue about the subject matter. They should not be punished if they are honestly wrong and are attempting to find the truth (or of course if they're actually right). They should be punished if they are actively spreading disinformation, meaning they know or should know that it's incorrect. We currently have a _lot_ of people spreading disinformation because it pads their pocketbook.
- tragictrash 4y ago
  I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here. I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right. Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise people questioning existing mainstream views, only the ones spouting horribly incorrect information. Noone is saying it will do that, other than you and other commenters who didnt read the article. Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?

anigbrowl 4y ago

A facile argument. By this logic fraud would be unprosecutable.