644
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
644 points (98.6% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4578 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why is it that blatantly lying about your political opponent and actively spreading clear disinformation that is easily reputable isn't penalized?
And I don't want like "cuz capitalism" zero effort responses, I'm wanting to know from an actual legal complexity standpoint what would go wrong if this was made illegal.
The fact it's so clearly provably as a false claim by countless directions, it should be an open and shut "you spread obvious disinformation" and at least a notable slap on the wrist should occur each time.
Why can a candidate just go and openly lie and say whatever without penalty, legally? Shouldn't this be under something like Libel, defamation, etc?
Shouldn't Kamala's crew be able to take Trump to court right now for defamation?
Their mob also does not believe trial by jury either now. they discredited the executive branch with trump, the legislative branch with the stunts in congress, the judicial branch with the supreme court, Cannon and his NY trial so now there is no taboo left to break to question an election without a massive potential for convolution. What Bernie is saying is not what people say is obvious.
What he is saying is prepare, trump-proof, harden and diversify your election integrity verification methods, because this time maga knows what it's doing.
What could go wrong when you have a law on the books like that is the people in power will enforce it based on their concept of truth, not yours. The libel laws are the way they are currently because lawmakers and courts have, so far, chosen to err on the side of encouraging speech. Letting anyone say anything they want about politicians is probably better than limiting political speech, because, in the wrong hands, limits on political speech can be very dangerous.
Then there’s the classic “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire” example. Maybe that could apply to knowing purveyors of disinformation, but you’d have to prove that they know what they are saying is false, and they intend harm. That’s a very high burden of proof, but if you can prove both of those then there’s a case for fraud.
This SCOTUS case has been largely overturned. It's from Schenck v. United States, a case involving people distributing fliers to draft age men during WW1 encouraging them to resist the draft. The ruling was narrowed in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to only allow free speech restrictions based on imminent harm, not just making the government a little uncomfortable.
The specific example of causing a stampede in a crowded theater could be criminalized as imminent harm. Speaking of that specific scenario, apparently it had come up because there had been multiple deadly stampedes in crowded theaters from false alarms. I wonder if now we would not have that. People have been trained from childhood to evacuate a building in an orderly fashion.
it has nothing to do with capitalism, the issue is freedom of speech is one of our most heavily protected rights in the constitution. winning a law suit over speech is extremely difficult. Even if it is a blatant lie you have to prove concrete damages to the victim.
What could go wrong if it was made illegal is what if the opposite was true and there was no one there? With how easily “evidence” can be fabricated It could easily devolve into “believe my truth or be punished”