3 ms·

>Any other suggestion for fixing the problem of „fake truths“ in politics? The problem is as old as large scale human societies. There are hundreds upon hundre

>Any other suggestion for fixing the problem of „fake truths“ in politics? The problem is as old as large scale human societies. There are hundreds upon hundreds of ways those groups have dealt with this problem. Banning lies is the same as criminalizing the opposition, as politics is also a conflict about truth. Do you believe that a political situation should be allowed to exist where your staunchest political opponents control the definition of truth and gets to prosecute based on that definition? Of course not, it is something so horrifying that it seems reasonable to use violence to prevent it.

Towaway69 2y ago
Why do you assume the opposition lies more than those in power? Both sides lie when it suits them. How does banning lies criminalise the opposition? Because those in power will claim they lied? That’s why there are courts of law for both parties to state their case. Defamation cases abound, these being classic examples of people lying about others. It only seems fair to extend that to politics and partly remove the immunity enjoyed by politicians.
- cauch 2y ago
  Exactly, I really don't understand the logic of people saying that it will allow to arrest the opposition. Surely, if the people in power have such power that they can force the judicial system concludes that an opponent has lied when there is no proof, then they can already arrest their opponents using a ton of already existing laws. They just need to say "they killed an old lady", and it is done.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >Exactly, I really don't understand the logic of people saying that it will allow to arrest the opposition. Because politics is about finding facts. It is the process of reconciling different viewpoints. The winner in politics has won on fact finding, the looser lost. By definition the opposition are liars in the political conflict.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Why do you assume the opposition lies more than those in power? Both sides lie when it suits them. I don't and it is irrelevant. >How does banning lies criminalise the opposition? Because politics is about factual disagreements. >Defamation cases abound, these being classic examples of people lying about others. It only seems fair to extend that to politics and partly remove the immunity enjoyed by politicians. But the court is politics. That is why we have politics, because people disagree. The political process resolves factual disagreements, criminalizing lies is criminalizing loosing.
- calf 2y ago
  Then why doesn't banning lying in politics cause Orwell, Kafka, Voltaire, and others to roll in their graves? Please provide a compelling reason why the warnings of our greatest philosophers and thinkers do not deserve even a moment's consideration. (It will be the burden of the Welsh gov't to prove that such a policy does not harm innocents and that this law ends up getting abused. This is a more powerful kind of law than e.g. ingredient labeling laws or e.g. hate speech laws: politically controversial issues are not so domain-specific or narrow in scope.) I am bewildered reading so many comments that are A-OK with this this proposal prima facie.

Towaway69 2y ago

Why do you assume the opposition lies more than those in power? Both sides lie when it suits them. How does banning lies criminalise the opposition? Because those in power will claim they lied? That’s why there are courts of law for both parties to state their case. Defamation cases abound, these being classic examples of people lying about others. It only seems fair to extend that to politics and partly remove the immunity enjoyed by politicians.

cauch 2y ago
Exactly, I really don't understand the logic of people saying that it will allow to arrest the opposition. Surely, if the people in power have such power that they can force the judicial system concludes that an opponent has lied when there is no proof, then they can already arrest their opponents using a ton of already existing laws. They just need to say "they killed an old lady", and it is done.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  >Exactly, I really don't understand the logic of people saying that it will allow to arrest the opposition. Because politics is about finding facts. It is the process of reconciling different viewpoints. The winner in politics has won on fact finding, the looser lost. By definition the opposition are liars in the political conflict.
constantcrying 2y ago
>Why do you assume the opposition lies more than those in power? Both sides lie when it suits them. I don't and it is irrelevant. >How does banning lies criminalise the opposition? Because politics is about factual disagreements. >Defamation cases abound, these being classic examples of people lying about others. It only seems fair to extend that to politics and partly remove the immunity enjoyed by politicians. But the court is politics. That is why we have politics, because people disagree. The political process resolves factual disagreements, criminalizing lies is criminalizing loosing.
calf 2y ago
Then why doesn't banning lying in politics cause Orwell, Kafka, Voltaire, and others to roll in their graves? Please provide a compelling reason why the warnings of our greatest philosophers and thinkers do not deserve even a moment's consideration. (It will be the burden of the Welsh gov't to prove that such a policy does not harm innocents and that this law ends up getting abused. This is a more powerful kind of law than e.g. ingredient labeling laws or e.g. hate speech laws: politically controversial issues are not so domain-specific or narrow in scope.) I am bewildered reading so many comments that are A-OK with this this proposal prima facie.