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This discussion has been archived.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.
BEWARE! People acting under the influence of human nature.
(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.)