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.
(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!!