4 ms·

And who exactly should be the authority of what "truth" and "proof" is? The government?

by bheadmaster 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago
The courts. Settling such questions is what they're for.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Settling such questions is what they're for. No, they're there to deliver justice. Truth in courts can and does change often when new evidence is brought into view. The idea that a single entity could somehow have a priori knowledge of truth, good enough to decide what is/isn't true in general, is a juvenile God fantasy. Truth is a tricky concept.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Courts are very much about establishing truth. I mean, they put people to death based on determinations of what actually happened. The word "fact" is derived from legal language. The purpose of all this may be the delivery of justice, but the machinery is all about establishment of what is and is not true.
    - fluoridation 4y ago
      Let's say your premise is granted. So in this hypothetical, courts are going to become moderation organizations for online content, in addition to their usual responsibilities?
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Courts are already the arbiter of expression, we have slander and libel in the states. They generally require you to prove that the parties involved knew what they are saying is a lie, which makes them a little toothless in practice. You are free to repeat anything you like as long as you do no due diligence on the info. Hell, alex jones literally just got slapped for his speech.
        int_19h 4y ago
        I think the question here is how that'd scale. UK already has a massive backlog of court cases that keeps growing, and that's just enforcing the existing laws. If "posting false things on the Internet" becomes a crime, we'd need orders of magnitude more courts to keep up. At some point, you have to ask if banning something that's so pervasive that most (or even a significant minority) is a good idea to begin with.
        Zpalmtree 4y ago
        A $1.44 billion fine is just a slap?
      - yunwal 4y ago
        > in addition to their usual responsibilities Courts have always been responsible for determining the truth. Libel is a crime. Every criminal case has a guilty/not guilty decision that must be grounded in the truth.
        fluoridation 4y ago
        Not for determining the truth of all statements made. At the most just of those made about people when the people they're about make a complaint.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      Not every court puts people to death. For most of them it is precisely because they cannot determine truth without leaving doubt. https://www.signaturelitigation.com/high-court-confirms-that-the-role-of-the-courts-is-not-to-discover-uncover-or-declare-the-truth-matt-peacock/ https://www.signaturelitigation.com/high-court-confirms-that...
  - twblalock 4y ago
    No, courts exist to decide if laws were broken. "Justice" is a squishy and subjective concept.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      Justice could be defined as punishing people who've broken the law. At least that's the way I meant it. I agree that justice, in a philosophical sense, is a subjective concept.

And who exactly should be the authority of what "truth" and "proof" is? The government?

pfdietz 4y ago

The courts. Settling such questions is what they're for.

bheadmaster 4y ago
> Settling such questions is what they're for. No, they're there to deliver justice. Truth in courts can and does change often when new evidence is brought into view. The idea that a single entity could somehow have a priori knowledge of truth, good enough to decide what is/isn't true in general, is a juvenile God fantasy. Truth is a tricky concept.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Courts are very much about establishing truth. I mean, they put people to death based on determinations of what actually happened. The word "fact" is derived from legal language. The purpose of all this may be the delivery of justice, but the machinery is all about establishment of what is and is not true.
  - fluoridation 4y ago
    Let's say your premise is granted. So in this hypothetical, courts are going to become moderation organizations for online content, in addition to their usual responsibilities?
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Courts are already the arbiter of expression, we have slander and libel in the states. They generally require you to prove that the parties involved knew what they are saying is a lie, which makes them a little toothless in practice. You are free to repeat anything you like as long as you do no due diligence on the info. Hell, alex jones literally just got slapped for his speech.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        I think the question here is how that'd scale. UK already has a massive backlog of court cases that keeps growing, and that's just enforcing the existing laws. If "posting false things on the Internet" becomes a crime, we'd need orders of magnitude more courts to keep up. At some point, you have to ask if banning something that's so pervasive that most (or even a significant minority) is a good idea to begin with.
      - Zpalmtree 4y ago
        A $1.44 billion fine is just a slap?
    - yunwal 4y ago
      > in addition to their usual responsibilities Courts have always been responsible for determining the truth. Libel is a crime. Every criminal case has a guilty/not guilty decision that must be grounded in the truth.
      - fluoridation 4y ago
        Not for determining the truth of all statements made. At the most just of those made about people when the people they're about make a complaint.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Not every court puts people to death. For most of them it is precisely because they cannot determine truth without leaving doubt. https://www.signaturelitigation.com/high-court-confirms-that-the-role-of-the-courts-is-not-to-discover-uncover-or-declare-the-truth-matt-peacock/ https://www.signaturelitigation.com/high-court-confirms-that...
- twblalock 4y ago
  No, courts exist to decide if laws were broken. "Justice" is a squishy and subjective concept.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    Justice could be defined as punishing people who've broken the law. At least that's the way I meant it. I agree that justice, in a philosophical sense, is a subjective concept.