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This discussion has been archived.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.
Hey, wait a minute!! I want a divorce!! ... you're not Clint Eastwood!!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @01:45AM
I agree with jmorris, which should tell you how bad of an idea this is since we're somewhere near the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
The only legitimate counter to speech or printed words that you don't like or think is wrong: Speech and printed words that refute them, ideally with solid evidence and logic. Giving anybody the power to simply shut people up means that power can defeat truth in the minds of those who are paying attention. That leads to a "reality" that is increasingly divorced from actual reality. That was one of the many reasons the Soviet Union collapsed: When nobody can tell the truth and survive, those making decisions can't hear what reality actually is, which guarantees bad decisions even from well-intentioned leaders (never mind ill-intentioned leaders who of course will make bad decisions regardless).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @02:16AM
Its making a mountain out of a molehill. One op-ed column said something that was more click-bait than anything else, techdirt took the bait and spooged all over it and now we're getting techdirt's sloppy seconds here. Of course this was never going to happen. But it did give a lot of people the chance to signal the shit out of their virtue.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:41AM
The appropriate course is to take them to court for fraud. If they can't provide evidence or sources for what they're printing, then they are scammers and can be dealt with in the usual way.
The problem here is that the courts seem to think that the distinction between news and entertainment isn't important. That organizations can claim to be "news" in all their advertisements and such, but be providing entertainment when anybody calls them on publishing known fake news articles.
It's one thing to publish and article or more that turns out to be true based upon a sincere belief that the sourcing and the rest was true and quite another to be making shit up that you know to be false. Libel has been illegal for quite some time and it's not unreasonable to extend that to instances where the government or the public at large was harmed by reporting that was known to use lies as the only substantiation.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday February 07 2017, @04:02PM
1. Defamation and libel is a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
2. A libel suit is an after-the-fact remedy, not a prior restraint on publishing information.
3. The legal standards for defamation of a public figure, especially a politician, are very very high. You have to prove that the defendant knew the claim was false, knew the claim would be taken seriously, and had "actual malice" when they did it. For example, Bill Maher can joke about Donald Trump being the son of an orange-haired orangutan, and that's completely legal. Also legal would be a reporter making an honest mistake like having sources that claimed that Nancy Pelosi was having an affair when she wasn't.
4. The Streisand Effect means that defamation suits tend to bring more attention to the alleged libel, so it's a risky move.
What the FTC is talking about here is being able to, say, censor out stuff before it gets to an audience because it's "fake news". Which they shouldn't be able to do under any reasonable reading of the First Amendment.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07 2017, @08:33PM
> What the FTC is talking about here is
Is nothing.
The FTC isn't saying anything. Its just some asshole with a newspaper column and a deadline.
Do not make this into more than it is.