4 ms·
It seems fundamentally it comes down to whether or not speech can directly cause harm. Canonical example of yelling fire and all that. But lately it’s also been
by yibg 4y ago
It seems fundamentally it comes down to whether or not speech can directly cause harm. Canonical example of yelling fire and all that. But lately it’s also been about misinformation, lies etc. should for example defamation be a thing, or fraud etc.
- sneak 4y agoMisinformation does not directly cause harm. The actions or inactions of those so affected is the thing that causes the harm; misinformation thus indirectly causes harm.
- colordrops 4y agoThat may be true but it does not mean that it should be banned.
- mr_toad 4y agoSo we should allow perjury?
- colordrops 4y agoDon't straw man. They didn't say perjury.
- sneak 4y agoWe do regularly allow perjury, as a matter of tradition and practice in the US. Almost every judicial search or seizure order issued is issued following law enforcement perjury (sometimes trivial, sometimes major). I have yet to see a search warrant application that does not contain falsehoods (each and every one sworn under penalty of perjury), and I only have experience with ones that have been signed and issued.
- notch898a 4y agoNot to mention there may be no mechanism to bring the perjurer to justice. For instance, I was served a search warrant on the basis a DOG accused me of wrongdoing. How do you accuse a dog of perjury? Not to mention it was an anonymous, unnamed dog and the person who allegedly listened to the dog was also unnamed on the warrant, so it was 3rd degree interspecies hearsay.
- sneak 4y agoAgree; GGP said it comes down to whether or not it directly causes harm. I agree with that. Misinformation harms indirectly; therefore it is and should remain legal.