5 ms·

It’s totally backwards to suggest that all information should be assumed to be true, and that false statements this need disclaimers, and parodies need to be so

It’s totally backwards to suggest that all information should be assumed to be true, and that false statements this need disclaimers, and parodies need to be so obvious as to cease to be a parody. The public should confront all claims - no matter the source - with ample skepticism and indeed an assumption that the information is likely false unless proved otherwise. Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied upon, or if there’s another special reason why consumers should believe the speaker (eg it’s their doctor, lawyer, etc).

Retric 4y ago
Should is rarely as important in these cases as what actually happens. There was a recent case before the Supreme Court where a guy who was legally innocent was still in prison. As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals. One of the Justices started asking if the government was concerned about the number of appeals should this be allowed. The court cares about such things because they are effectively above the rules and could do a great deal of damage.
- joshuacc 4y ago
  Which case are you referring to? I haven’t heard anything about it.
  - Retric 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Hendrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Hendrix Alito: Are you concerned that every federal prisoner who wants to bring a successive motion is going to claim that this falls within the traditional scope of habeas, and this would be an escape clause that would be invoked again and again and again, and all the district judges are going to have to analyze the traditional scope of habeas to see whether the claim actually falls within that? Feigin responded that he was not concerned with overburdening the federal courts because, in his view, it is rare that a case would fall within the narrow parameters suggested by his position in Jones’ case. Feigin told Alito that Jones’ case constitutes “probably a category of one” in which “somebody is in prison for something that Congress never made a crime.” https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-concerned-that-freeing-legally-innocent-man-from-prison-would-clog-up-the-federal-courts/ https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-concerne...
    - kwhitefoot 4y ago
      Did he get out?
      - Retric 4y ago
        It’s currently under review, the Supreme Court can take a while to make a decision.
- supernova87a 4y ago
  Isn't it a bit more subtle than that? The guy was convicted of multiple offenses related to firearms possession while a felon, under laws and interpretation that were not in dispute at the time. He is not "innocent" of possessing firearms, not that it matters, but let's make that clear. The part in dispute (I believe) is that one of the counts was duplicative, and then, that SCOTUS subsequently ruled that you have to "knowingly" possess the firearm. (which might set him free) His current appeal is that under the laws at the time of his conviction, he exhausted the opportunities for appeal (back then), but then the interpretation changed after that time. So ordinarily now, he would have had the opportunity to make a claim for being not guilty under the new standard. I liken it to (if we had to make a tech analogy), changing the version of something while a system was still in operation with a long process pipeline, and some users were stranded in limbo between 2 versions of a policy. Reading the cert brief, I can understand why SCOTUS might want to make clear what to do in cases like this. But I imagine that the ruling might be short and clear, befitting a "correction" to a legal process that let something slip through the cracks. If it is/does resolve it, the defendant still may be in prison, not "innocent" because this just resolves the one duplication of charges or knowing possession standard. It's not like "an innocent man is in prison for something he didn't do". Again, not that that matters to the principle.
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s important to understand what is and isn’t being considered here. He is considered legally innocent, that doesn’t mean he is actually innocent only that the courts are treating him as if he where innocent of this crime. It’s the same situation as someone getting convicted of breaking a law that came into effect after they had done it. They bring a Habeas corpus appeal that says based on the facts accepted at trial and the date of the law went into effect I committed no crime rather than saying I didn’t do it.
- wgjordan 4y ago
  > As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals. This is the position of the Eighth Circuit and seems to be the likely eventual position of the conservative Supreme Court justices, but the government's position is actually a bit more nuanced: yes his existing conviction would no longer be upheld under more recent statutory interpretation, and he should be granted an extra appeal if he could actually demonstrate his innocence under the new interpretation, but what he did would probably still be considered illegal when all available facts on the record are considered and so he wouldn't satisfy what the government considers a reasonable threshold for an extra special appeal.
awb 4y ago
> The public should confront all claims - no matter the source - with ample skepticism and indeed an assumption that the information is likely false unless proved otherwise. I'm 100% for parodies, but this is a nearly impossible burden for the public. For example, if you don't have medical training, how would you go about proving a medical fact? You could spend years educating yourself and doing experiments, or like most people you could find a source that someone else recommends (a friend, Google, etc.) and choose to trust it. We don't prove the fact ourselves, we just assume that someone else before us proved it, but we can't verify their proof as we often don't have the knowledge, time or tools to do so.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
runlevel1 4y ago
> Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied upon Regarding slander and libel: The appellant wasn't charged with any sort of defamation. Criminal defamation has been quite thoroughly ruled unconstitutional. In the civil context, defamation in general requires one to have knowingly made a false statement with reckless disregard of the truth. You also have to prove that it damaged you in some material way. (Intentional infliction of emotional distress is very, very difficult to prove.) The bar is even higher if it's against a public figure or a so-called "limited-purpose public figure" adding the requirement of actual malice. So I'd say the requirements for civil defamation are already quite strict. (IANAL)

Retric 4y ago

Should is rarely as important in these cases as what actually happens. There was a recent case before the Supreme Court where a guy who was legally innocent was still in prison. As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals. One of the Justices started asking if the government was concerned about the number of appeals should this be allowed. The court cares about such things because they are effectively above the rules and could do a great deal of damage.

joshuacc 4y ago
Which case are you referring to? I haven’t heard anything about it.
- Retric 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Hendrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Hendrix Alito: Are you concerned that every federal prisoner who wants to bring a successive motion is going to claim that this falls within the traditional scope of habeas, and this would be an escape clause that would be invoked again and again and again, and all the district judges are going to have to analyze the traditional scope of habeas to see whether the claim actually falls within that? Feigin responded that he was not concerned with overburdening the federal courts because, in his view, it is rare that a case would fall within the narrow parameters suggested by his position in Jones’ case. Feigin told Alito that Jones’ case constitutes “probably a category of one” in which “somebody is in prison for something that Congress never made a crime.” https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-concerned-that-freeing-legally-innocent-man-from-prison-would-clog-up-the-federal-courts/ https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-concerne...
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    Did he get out?
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s currently under review, the Supreme Court can take a while to make a decision.
supernova87a 4y ago
Isn't it a bit more subtle than that? The guy was convicted of multiple offenses related to firearms possession while a felon, under laws and interpretation that were not in dispute at the time. He is not "innocent" of possessing firearms, not that it matters, but let's make that clear. The part in dispute (I believe) is that one of the counts was duplicative, and then, that SCOTUS subsequently ruled that you have to "knowingly" possess the firearm. (which might set him free) His current appeal is that under the laws at the time of his conviction, he exhausted the opportunities for appeal (back then), but then the interpretation changed after that time. So ordinarily now, he would have had the opportunity to make a claim for being not guilty under the new standard. I liken it to (if we had to make a tech analogy), changing the version of something while a system was still in operation with a long process pipeline, and some users were stranded in limbo between 2 versions of a policy. Reading the cert brief, I can understand why SCOTUS might want to make clear what to do in cases like this. But I imagine that the ruling might be short and clear, befitting a "correction" to a legal process that let something slip through the cracks. If it is/does resolve it, the defendant still may be in prison, not "innocent" because this just resolves the one duplication of charges or knowing possession standard. It's not like "an innocent man is in prison for something he didn't do". Again, not that that matters to the principle.
- Retric 4y ago
  It’s important to understand what is and isn’t being considered here. He is considered legally innocent, that doesn’t mean he is actually innocent only that the courts are treating him as if he where innocent of this crime. It’s the same situation as someone getting convicted of breaking a law that came into effect after they had done it. They bring a Habeas corpus appeal that says based on the facts accepted at trial and the date of the law went into effect I committed no crime rather than saying I didn’t do it.
wgjordan 4y ago
> As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals. This is the position of the Eighth Circuit and seems to be the likely eventual position of the conservative Supreme Court justices, but the government's position is actually a bit more nuanced: yes his existing conviction would no longer be upheld under more recent statutory interpretation, and he should be granted an extra appeal if he could actually demonstrate his innocence under the new interpretation, but what he did would probably still be considered illegal when all available facts on the record are considered and so he wouldn't satisfy what the government considers a reasonable threshold for an extra special appeal.

awb 4y ago

> The public should confront all claims - no matter the source - with ample skepticism and indeed an assumption that the information is likely false unless proved otherwise. I'm 100% for parodies, but this is a nearly impossible burden for the public. For example, if you don't have medical training, how would you go about proving a medical fact? You could spend years educating yourself and doing experiments, or like most people you could find a source that someone else recommends (a friend, Google, etc.) and choose to trust it. We don't prove the fact ourselves, we just assume that someone else before us proved it, but we can't verify their proof as we often don't have the knowledge, time or tools to do so.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

runlevel1 4y ago

> Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied upon Regarding slander and libel: The appellant wasn't charged with any sort of defamation. Criminal defamation has been quite thoroughly ruled unconstitutional. In the civil context, defamation in general requires one to have knowingly made a false statement with reckless disregard of the truth. You also have to prove that it damaged you in some material way. (Intentional infliction of emotional distress is very, very difficult to prove.) The bar is even higher if it's against a public figure or a so-called "limited-purpose public figure" adding the requirement of actual malice. So I'd say the requirements for civil defamation are already quite strict. (IANAL)