General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere Does 1st Amendment End - Anti-Virus Disinformation And Known Lies Are Killing People
At one point is spreading lies, and disinformation to make money or fame become a crime, or something one can be sued over.
There has to be more consequences than de-platforming attempted murderers.
riversedge
(70,078 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There has to be a way to regulate false speech, especially that which is done in commerce. It's been needed in advertising for decades. You see it being regulated in pharmaceutical advertising, surely we can do it in monetized podcasts about all manner of scientific subjects.
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)Political speech enjoys the highest levels of protection. It's scary to contemplate any system in which the government controlled "truth".
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)We're never going to be able to shut up the politicians. But those doing it for profit?????
You have a monetized podcast? And to some extent, it would seem "fund raising" should be able to be regulated.
tritsofme
(17,370 posts)Should not be protected by the First Amendment?
What?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)It's already illegal for newspapers to knowingly lie, mostly if it defames someone. I'm not sure it's such a leap to say that lying which results in danger to the health and/or safety of the general public is any different. They aren't allowed to publish information about troop movements that would endanger them. The National Enquirer already has lost legal cases because of their careless regard for the truth. Supplement manufacturers have to be careful about claims of the effectivity of supplements to cure diseases. Why should a podcast be allowed to do it?
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)Of determining "truth" is an infinitely scarier alternative. You are free to be wrong in this country if all you are peddling are your thoughts and words. We have more than enough laws to punish fraud and defamation. We don't need a Dept. of Truth...
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)There are all manner of things you can't say in all sorts of commercial settings. You wanna tell lies at the corner bar, have at it. You want to misrepresent information for profit, that's another story. NYT is in court right now for a editorial they wrote.
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)If all you are peddling are your thoughts and words, there are no restrictions outside of specific threats. Any limit on the statement of opinions is a serious assault to freedom of speech.
Before you propose a well intentioned increase in government power, ask yourself what would Trump and the rest of them do with that power?
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)What did they do with it?
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)The government does not have the power to shut down the exchange of opinions, ideas or words, even if false and even if profitable.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If they slander or libel in the process. If they incite violence or conspire in the act of doing so. And, if they expose deployed troops to danger through expose of their location or intentions.
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)We have addressed the points in this thread and to clarify, defamation is a tort, not a crime. What they can not do is criminally penalize opinions and statements simply for being misleading or untrue. That is what is being discussed here.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)The FDA can stop you from advertising or otherwise claiming that a drug or procedure or treatment will cure or otherwise treat a disease without their approval. Seems rather applicable to the current situation. And is an example of the government deciding what "truth" is.
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)for my point to get across.
I can tell as many people as I want that I think antibiotics are evil and do not work to cure bacterial infections.
I can not claim (without evidence) that my all natural miracle juice does cure infections.
One is a (demonstrably wrong) opinion, the other is a specific false claim being used for commercial purposes. We can can get into the difference between commercial speech and opinions (especially political/religious opinions) in this country and the very long case history that have brought us to our current understanding of the limits on free speech in this country. But if you can't or refuse to understand the above example and it's implications, it would be a very unproductive conversation.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You can't tell them that the vaccines don't work, or that they are killing people, or that there are microchips in them, or they'll make you infertile, or that they cause any disease at all.
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)You are entitled to your errant opinions and have the right to voice them.
As a long time card carrying member of the ACLU, I honestly can't believe I'm hearing this on a left wing site.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)You can say, "I think this supplement will help".
You can't say "this supplement has been shown to help".
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)If you aren't trying to profit off of the product, you can say whatever you want about it.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)We don't generally go after people that aren't advertising the product. But you can get in trouble (mostly civil or regulatory for which the penalties can often be minor) for asserting false claims about a supplement. Fox News had to back down on some claims about Dominion because they were being threatened by the repeated false claims about them. The same can be done for people profiting off of false claims about vaccines, or false treatments for Covid.
Septua
(2,252 posts)Yeah, the First Amendment gets exploited but it's what the Country is all about.
SYFROYH
(34,162 posts)Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.
.
.
.
In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).
Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
kelly1mm
(4,732 posts)Speech, not censorship/criminalization.
Well said.
cinematicdiversions
(1,969 posts)blogslug
(37,982 posts)I could be wrong
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,250 posts)blogslug
(37,982 posts)Does the "Harm Principle" not apply?
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,250 posts)Here's a thought, take it to the Judicial system and see if they agree, highly doubtful, but you never know.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)How about making money lying about products from which you derive no profit? If I make money because people pay to listen to me advise them about products, and I lie about those products usefulness, should I be allowed to do that?
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)because they think it will get people to continue to subscribe?
See...
https://lawreview.syr.edu/fake-news-v-the-first-amendment-fox-news-gets-sued-for-alleged-campaign-of-deception-disseminating-of-disinformation-to-deny-downplay-the-danger-of-coronavirus/
Sympthsical
(9,037 posts)What could possibly go wrong with a Ministry of Truth?
There's a reason that amendment is first.
Emile
(22,480 posts)A single violation under 18 USC § 1001 is a felony-level offense that carries fines up to $250,000 and up to five years in prison
Zeitghost
(3,845 posts)It would be best to quote the pertinent portions of that section of code and its legal context.