Reported by the same NPR that published this:
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-med...
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...
Unfortunately they aren't exactly a proponent of free speech themselves.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-med...
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...
Unfortunately they aren't exactly a proponent of free speech themselves.
Fake news isn't a marketplace of ideas, it's the opposite. NPR is calling for roadblocks on fake news and misinformation. Many intellectual people who should better seem to intentionally promote the right to spread fake news and facts as something good for society because it is primarily helping their side politically. Whereas free speech is being able to speak your mind freely. We already have some limited laws restricting free speech like in cases of fraud and libel. Why shouldn't they be extended to news sources making up bullshit that never happened like NPR was suggesting?
How are we to differentiate speaking one's mind freely from spreading misinformation? No human possesses perfect information.
Also the word 'outlaw'. What if tech companies don't amplify the fake news of both creators and repeaters?
As far as the law is concerned a narrow and carefully crafted law can written, a repeater does not get in trouble unless it can be proven without a doubt that they knew it was fake news yet chose to spread it. As far as who decides it(in the legal system), we already have a system that works fairly decently, the court system. Maybe just civil sanctions, like a $500 fine. The accused will have a chance to explain to the court and the public their rationale behind what they wrote/said.
We already have libel and other laws that restrict free speech. E.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#United_State...
This law wouldn't affect opinions in the slightest. Saying "x gender should stay home", "y race people are terrible" would still not violate law.
Again, this is something that I just threw together, I am sure there are many smarter people than me who can refine it so we can protect true free speech while restricting fake news.
So I guess it's time for the courts to pack up and shut down and go home.
>to the definitely impossible task of determining what someone believed at the moment of speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)
Yes, the courts should definitely turn off the lights right away.
>Pray you never have to answer in court for this thread.
Even if I was somehow successfully prosecuted it'd only be a civil fine. I am not worried.
Maybe these people are worried?