SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
FatPhil
on Monday February 06 2017, @09:17PM
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
from the is-there-an-all-fake-news-sites-are-liars-paradox dept.
Over the last few months, we've talked about the weird obsession some people upset by the results of the election have had with the concept of "fake news." We warned that focusing on "fake news" as a problem was not just silly and pointless, but that it would quickly morph into calls for censorship. And, even worse, that censorship power would be in the hands of whoever got to define what "fake news" was.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bad Idea or the Worst Idea? Having the FTC Regulate "Fake News"
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 134 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
If we can ever make red tape nutritional, we can feed the world.
-- R. Schaeberle, "Management Accounting"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @12:28AM
The fake news isn't news, therefore it isn't protected by the first amendment for the same reason that other forms of fraud aren't protected. The big issue here is figuring out how to separate shitty news from fake news. The former should be protected, but the latter really shouldn't.
Unfortunately, ever since Rupert Murdoch was allowed to illegally buy media companies, and then challenge in court that they aren't news, the quality has been going downhill precipitously. The fact that the media consolidation rules were also tossed out just made it that much worse.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:12AM
Except - the constitution doesn't guarantee the freedom to define the news. It does guarantee the freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press. Tabloids have been free to publish nonsense, forever. And, housewives have been free to discuss the cow that gave birth to tiger cubs for at least as long. The moment you get to decide what is protected news, and what is not, some other arrogant bastard will be just as free to decide what you should and what you should not read.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:19AM
Runaway1926! Now a Constitutional Scholar! Move over Barrry "Barack" Obama, Runaway is in the house! And he says:
Except - the constitution doesn't guarantee the freedom to define the news.
Yeah, right there in the Consitutioning thing, somewhere. I swear I saw it a minute ago. "The right to define news", or was it "the right to keep and bear fake news"? Well, it's in there. Trust me. I am Runaway1896! Constitutional Lawyer! (Note: Comments on websites do not constitute actual legal opinions. If you experience a Trump lasting more than four hours, seek medical attention immediately. The actual Frist Amendment does not say way you think it says, and you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. Offer void in all states except Arkansas, for obvious rebuttal reasons.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:32AM
It doesn't guarantee the right to fraudulent speech. There's literally centuries of case law on the matter that making shit up isn't protected when being passed off as truth. If you want the first amendment to cover made up shit, write a novel or a screenplay. Not, fake news.
The only issue here is that drawing the line is tricky and the people drawing the lines are likely to have motives other than the public's best interest.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:32PM
We already have libel and slander laws. Put them to use. No new laws needed. It's kinda like murder has ALWAYS been against the law, since even before gunpowder was invented. WTF would we need new laws, making it illegal to commit murder with a gun? Also kinda like, it's always been possible to keep a journal - WTF should we pay some damned fool who thought of "method to keep a journal ON A COMPUTER!"
Laws, laws, laws - authoritarians always want to pass new laws. Why is that? Oh - derp - authoritarian!!
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:49AM
We've always been at war with East Asia. Any claim that we ever had been at war with Eurasia is fake news and therefore must be suppressed.
Yes, fake news is a problem. But in this case, government control is a cure worse that the disease.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.