3 ms·

Politicians are also offered the right to free speech though, I'm not sure how a rule like this could work. It would also require someone or a group people are

Politicians are also offered the right to free speech though, I'm not sure how a rule like this could work. It would also require someone or a group people are given authority to determine what that reality is and when the politician actively misrepresented it. I don't know who in their right mind would go into office with such a limitation, and anyone there today would likely be found guilty. Hell, anyone attempting to make causal claims with regards to the economy are misrepresenting reality as causation can almost never be shown in economics, only correlations. Even the economic data itself could be considered misrepresentative in some ways, inflation data and CPI calculations are carefully controlled for various reasons.

rbanffy 2y ago
> Politicians are also offered the right to free speech thoug The bar should be higher for them because of the reach of their misrepresentations. > It would also require someone or a group people are given authority to determine what that reality is and when the politician actively misrepresented it. That's what courts are for. > I don't know who in their right mind would go into office with such a limitation Someone who wants to serve their people to their best capacity. > Hell, anyone attempting to make causal claims with regards to the economy Politicians shouldn't make idle comments anyway. It's fine to say "I don't know", or "I'm not sure", or, even, make it clear it's your opinion (unless, of course, your stock market trades say otherwise). Finally, you can be wrong about something. It happens to anyone. Being wrong is not the same as deliberately lying.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > That's what courts are for. It isn't, courts determine if a certain standard of evidence has been reached. One of the more ingenious parts of the UK-descended legal systems is they take a very philosophical stance on the actual state of reality. The judges and juries are discouraged from any attempt at making reference to the real world, expected instead to adjudicate between two funhouse-mirror interpretations of reality presented by professional advocates. That is one of the underpinnings of free speech, in fact. We have free speech because there is no way to determine if a statement aligns with reality or not end especially not the motivations of the person making it. If we had a method for that - be it courts or a sensor or a logical technique or whatever - then free speech would be highly undesirable. We could just ban lies.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  > The bar should be higher for them because of the reach of their misrepresentations. What bar? If you are proposing that their speech should be held to a higher standard, that doesn't sound like free speech. > That's what courts are for. Courts are procedural, unless you are specifically speaking of the appellate process or a supreme court they are only meant to ensure that our rights are upheld and that the correct process is followed during trial. > Politicians shouldn't make idle comments anyway. Totally agree. I often respect a politician more simply for being willing to say something like "I don't know, I'll try to find out." > Finally, you can be wrong about something. It happens to anyone. Being wrong is not the same as deliberately lying. Absolutely. Politicians just often don't fall into this bucket. They are knowingly lying, either because they just care about selling themselves to potential voters, because it helps pad their wallet, or because they are trying to leverage their position to move people in a direction they think is best.

rbanffy 2y ago

> Politicians are also offered the right to free speech thoug The bar should be higher for them because of the reach of their misrepresentations. > It would also require someone or a group people are given authority to determine what that reality is and when the politician actively misrepresented it. That's what courts are for. > I don't know who in their right mind would go into office with such a limitation Someone who wants to serve their people to their best capacity. > Hell, anyone attempting to make causal claims with regards to the economy Politicians shouldn't make idle comments anyway. It's fine to say "I don't know", or "I'm not sure", or, even, make it clear it's your opinion (unless, of course, your stock market trades say otherwise). Finally, you can be wrong about something. It happens to anyone. Being wrong is not the same as deliberately lying.

roenxi 2y ago
> That's what courts are for. It isn't, courts determine if a certain standard of evidence has been reached. One of the more ingenious parts of the UK-descended legal systems is they take a very philosophical stance on the actual state of reality. The judges and juries are discouraged from any attempt at making reference to the real world, expected instead to adjudicate between two funhouse-mirror interpretations of reality presented by professional advocates. That is one of the underpinnings of free speech, in fact. We have free speech because there is no way to determine if a statement aligns with reality or not end especially not the motivations of the person making it. If we had a method for that - be it courts or a sensor or a logical technique or whatever - then free speech would be highly undesirable. We could just ban lies.
_heimdall 2y ago
> The bar should be higher for them because of the reach of their misrepresentations. What bar? If you are proposing that their speech should be held to a higher standard, that doesn't sound like free speech. > That's what courts are for. Courts are procedural, unless you are specifically speaking of the appellate process or a supreme court they are only meant to ensure that our rights are upheld and that the correct process is followed during trial. > Politicians shouldn't make idle comments anyway. Totally agree. I often respect a politician more simply for being willing to say something like "I don't know, I'll try to find out." > Finally, you can be wrong about something. It happens to anyone. Being wrong is not the same as deliberately lying. Absolutely. Politicians just often don't fall into this bucket. They are knowingly lying, either because they just care about selling themselves to potential voters, because it helps pad their wallet, or because they are trying to leverage their position to move people in a direction they think is best.