Current Events > The US really needs to set up laws making spreading disinformation a crime.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Smashingpmkns posted...

So is there going to be a court hearing for every accusation of misinformation lol

Anyone they feel reasonably certain they can prove

a) That the information given was false
b) That the person giving it should reasonably have known it was false
c) That real or potential harm is possible because of the information

LotsOfHorror posted...

That's an argument for why it won't happen, not why it shouldn't.

That depends. Is there any difference between intentionally spreading disinformation, or unintionally? If it's the former then those people and whatever news outlet they utilize should be held accountable.

But if not due either to a honest misunderstanding on them or they're sources part, pure incompetence or deceit or whatever......I don't really believe that should be a punishable offense. Since especially in this kind of field mistakes like these just happen from time to time.

And is something I believe can and will be heavily abused.

My one and only point is it would be state prosecutors bringing these cases, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty deciding them.

Two groups I believe most of CE would agree with very little ideologically.

If you think this would play out just dandy irl, cool.

Prismsblade posted...

That depends. Is there any difference between intentionally spreading disinformation, or unintionally? If it's the former then those people and whatever news outlet they utilize should be held accountable.

There absolutely is, and also a difference between unintentionally spreading misinformation after doing due diligence in research, and spreading misinformation that could've been easily verified. This ABSOLUTELY should be considered.

Prismsblade posted...

But if not due either to a honest misunderstanding on them or they're sources part, pure incompetence or deceit or whatever......I don't really believe that should be a punishable offense. Since especially in this kind of field mistakes like these just happen from time to time.

I agree if it's an honest mistake but not incompetence, they should be protected. But take for example the Trump hydroxychloroquine debacle - he believed it to be true, but he had access to a clear source of reliable information he could've checked and learned that it was a bad idea, and his misinformation led to people dying. I believe if you have a significant audience, you have a responsibility to ensure your information is accurate.

Alteres posted...

people not smart enough to get out of jury duty

Man there is so much to unpack with this little statement

While the intention sounds great in theory, it wouldn't go the way you want it to and would be easily abused.

For example Trumplicans call anything that hurts their snowflake feelings fake news. Now honestly think what that would mean if they are ever in power again.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Pretty sure TC is Octillery

NatsuSama posted...

While the intention sounds great in theory, it wouldn't go the way you want it to and would be easily abused.

For example Trumplicans call anything that hurts their snowflake feelings fake news. Now honestly think what that would mean if they are ever in power again.

But with what I'm suggesting, simply calling it misinformation isn't enough - a prosecutor would have to both prove to the jury that it was misinformation, and prove that the person knew or should've known it was false at the time. A jury would be the one to ultimately decide on it. It's not like someone would just be arrested and permanently thrown in jail.

MrKapowski posted...

Pretty sure TC is Octillery

You are correct.

The underlying sentiment I'm getting is "some forms of thought policing would benefit society."

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I made a post about a hot button issue because it's an important issue. The only people actually upset about a law like this are the people a law like this would be put in place for.

Solid_Sonic posted...

The underlying sentiment I'm getting is "some forms of thought policing would benefit society."

Then you lack reading comprehension, this isn't thought policing.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Then you lack reading comprehension, this isn't thought policing.

Just ignore me, I'm only here to make people angry.

Solid_Sonic posted...

Just ignore me, I'm only here to make people angry.

Oh ok then, please continue :D

God no, that's too dangerous in a country where every single party will abuse this law. Just about every speech law that doesn't involve exclusively threats, Karen's, or swatting is not going to fly here.

So basically every single right wing boomer on facebook is going to prison.

The_Superstar posted...

So basically every single right wing boomer on facebook is going to prison.

They don't really have the audience to matter. For social media, the only people I'd expect to be covered by this are major celebrities - if you're reaching more than 1 million people directly with your message, say, you should have a responsibility for accuracy.

Hop103 posted...

God no, that's too dangerous in a country where every single party will abuse this law. Just about every speech law that doesn't involve exclusively threats, Karen's, or swatting is not going to fly here.

How would they abuse it with the setup I've described?

News organizations and politicians need to be held to some kind of standards at least on paper (ie if it would be nearly impossible to enforce barring extreme circumstances).

When we had Trump telling people that COVID wasn't dangerous, and then tapes came out of him talking about how horrible COVID is, that's a clear cut case of him actively killing people with misinformation for political gain.

Way too difficult to enact something like this

Agree with you TC. I dont know if we could do it nationwide but I think just starting with this site would be a good beginning. Id be happy to do it, and of course along with a few other fantastic users. We could start here and clean up this site of misinformation.

We would work hand in hand with the mods and anyone found spreading misinformation would be dealt with accordingly. Love it !

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Not trolling I promise, just a bit of an acerbic personality in debates. Holdover from far worse past habits that I'm trying to work on.

emblem-man posted...

Way too difficult to enact something like this

Possibly, but it's also way too important not too.

Blightzkrieg posted...

News organizations and politicians need to be held to some kind of standards at least on paper (ie if it would be nearly impossible to enforce barring extreme circumstances).

When we had Trump telling people that COVID wasn't dangerous, and then tapes came out of him talking about how horrible COVID is, that's a clear cut case of him actively killing people with misinformation for political gain.

The hydroxychloroquine is a good example of unintentional but reckless misinformation too, he believed it but should've known better given his position.

not just in the US but worldwide as well.

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately the GOP will have to be ousted before we can even consider this.

mario2000 posted...

Agreed 100%. Unfortunately the GOP will have to be ousted before we can even consider this.

Well lets get to ousting

Also take note itt of who is going "buh who gets to define truth!?!??!" as if truth is something that is defined and not something that exists independently, on its own.

mario2000 posted...

Also take note itt of who is going "buh who gets to define truth!?!??!" as if truth is something that is defined and not something that exists independently, on its own.

Yuuuuuuuuup

MrKapowski posted...

Pretty sure TC is Octillery

This explains a lot.

MrKapowski posted...

Space__Cowboy posted...

This explains a lot.

It sure does explain me being right :D

What if it is misinformation, but it is for the good of the public? Still prosecute?

NeoShadowhen posted...

What if it is misinformation, but it is for the good of the public? Still prosecute?

Examples?

But responding to the in general idea, I'd say no. I don't want it prosecuted unless you can draw a direct line between the misinformation and real or potential harm caused.

I think it's safe to say the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate.
That's were the issue lies - our education.

Dragon56 posted...

I think it's safe to say the majority of Americans are scientifically illiterate.
That's were the issue lies - our education.

That's definitely a big part of it, but even with that misinformation is a huge and dangerous issue for science at large.

This would be abused. No question about it.

LotsOfHorror posted...

Examples?

But responding to the in general idea, I'd say no. I don't want it prosecuted unless you can draw a direct line between the misinformation and real or potential harm caused.

An example would be Fauci saying that masks werent effective for slowing the spread of Covid due to a shortage of masks and fears that people would stockpile them.

If youre going to make it into a situation where you have to do an analysis of lives lost if we lie vs. lives lost if we dont lie, this whole thing is going to get ridiculously sticky.

Dreepapult posted...

This would be abused. No question about it.

How? Give examples how they'd abuse this, given it's ultimately a random jury deciding it.

If I were in power, I'd love for this to be a thing.

NeoShadowhen posted...

An example would be Fauci saying that masks werent effective for slowing the spread of Covid due to a shortage of masks and fears that people would stockpile them.

In fairness, my understanding of this is that he understood masks don't effectively stop contraction of covid, but was mistaken through incomplete information rather than a desire to protect the supply. Either way though, I'd definitely say not a bad thing there.

NeoShadowhen posted...

If youre going to make it into a situation where you have to do an analysis of lives lost if we lie vs. lives lost if we dont lie, this whole thing is going to get ridiculously sticky.

I don't see this as a bad thing - this is definitely a huge deal that should be sticky to prevent abuse. If it's a case that's unclear if it was harmful or not, let it go - there are still plenty of cases that ARE clear.

LotsOfHorror posted...

I don't see this as a bad thing - this is definitely a huge deal that should be sticky to prevent abuse.

So long as it's actual harm and not hurt feelings, seems like existing fraud statutes may apply.

What are some examples of instances that would clearly apply to this?

Also, what if what is said is in the form of an opinion I believe that ? It seems like then you would need to prove that they didnt believe it, otherwise what they said is not false.

NeoShadowhen posted...

Also, what if what is said is in the form of an opinion I believe that ? It seems like then you would need to prove that they didnt believe it, otherwise what they said is not false.

That's the obvious end result of this sort of legislation.
"these statements are the opinion of..." in tiny wording at the bottom of the screen, or "just asking questions, bro!" become very viable legal defenses.

Space__Cowboy posted...

Who determines what is disinformation? This could be weaponized too easily.

I'm down to put into the work to weaponize and take over the country. I mean Trump has basically spent the past 7 years doing this with misinformation. Anything to get those Boomers into the grave faster is what I'm down for.

We need to make sure they are actually lies first lol

Cubis101 posted...

I'm down to put into the work to weaponize and take over the country.

"Tyranny is great, when it's my tyranny!"

LotsOfHorror posted...

But with what I'm suggesting, simply calling it misinformation isn't enough - a prosecutor would have to both prove to the jury that it was misinformation, and prove that the person knew or should've known it was false at the time. A jury would be the one to ultimately decide on it. It's not like someone would just be arrested and permanently thrown in jail.

I don't have confidence in our judicial system so I still see your plan as a problem.

If I had done just ONE of the many illegal things Trump has done, I'd be in prison so fast its not even funny.

Trump.... I lost count on the illegal shit he's done and he continues to walk free. It's yet to be seen if Jan 6th will end Trump, and to be frank I doubt it will. There's plenty enough proof to prosecute and convict this man and yet I see him walking free or at worse a slap on the hand.

My point is the judicial system is controlled by capitalism to a large degree. So misinformation and the legalities surrounding it would mostly come down to who can afford the most expensive lawyers, and buy politicians to control what's considered "fake news."

If anything, I see this hitting low income households and only serving as a minor inconvenience for rich people as they cry "political attacks." Look at Musk and his tax fraud of manipulating the market. Bet that goes no where significant that would hurt him proportionally to you or I committing the same crime.

NeoShadowhen posted...

I assume that the laws will apply to politicians as well? Who do you think would remain in office?

The establishment would decide that.

RustyFerret posted...

The establishment would decide that.

Yup. Theyd also decide which media sources would be gone after. It would be the smaller upstarts that are getting too big and threatening the corporate narrative.

This whole idea is extremely in favor of the billionaire corporations and the people in power they control. It would be an unmitigated disaster, and should be viewed on par with someone suggesting that maybe we ought to just consider a little bit of eugenics.

2Pacavelli posted...

Violation of first amendment it will never happen

The first amendment literally gives you the right to shit talk the government with no fear of being crammed in a gulag, that's it.

We used to have a law on the books called the Fairness Doctrine, that made it law that in the news you had to present both sides of an argument and give them equal time, and you had to make it known that opinion pieces were just that: opinion, not proven fact. That alone would cripple Faux News.

But then Reagan came along and got rid of the Fairness Doctrine, leading to the rise of Faux News, the right wing propaganda network.