Why is this legal?

[Angra Mainyu]

Well, in some cases, sure, but there's no effin way Obama visited 57 states, right?

To be fair, it would be extremely difficult to show beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama lied about that, and in fact he did not.
Even when it comes to commercial speech, false claims that result from mistakes are generally not criminal, and are definitely not fraud (though in some cases, they might involve criminal negligence, but that could happen in some cases even when the speech is not commercial).

Anyway, I think that criminalizing political lies is a generally bad idea because of its potential for abuse, but in any case, I think it's better to make a clear distinction between false claims (very common) and lies (also very common, but much more difficult to establish beyond a reasonable doubt).

OK, fair enough, let's have Trump's Truth Squad get him on the stand and if he can list the 57 states he went to and present enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt he actually did he can go free.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I think you have the better case, but I don't think you're helping it. Anyway, if you want a reply: Of course there it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go to 57 states. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied, and in fact it's extremely probable that he did not lie.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Ignoring for the moment the Supreme Court has found that false speech is protected speech, what exactly are you proposing?

You want Trump to appoint a Truth Commission to prosecute the purveyors of fake news?

Non-commercial false speech is protected speech.

Commercial false speech is generally considered fraud.

All we need to do is consider political speech a form of commercial speech.

OK, so let's ignore the fact that it isn't commercial speech and indeed political speech has historically been the most protected form of speech and plow ahead.

How much power do you want Trump's truth squad to have?

Can they prosecute Obama for saying he had been to 57 states?

How about Nancy Pelosi for saying not passing some bill would cost 500 million jobs per month?

I do think political speech is rather like commercial speech. It's after votes rather than dollars but that doesn't change the basic nature.

 

[dismal]

OK, fair enough, let's have Trump's Truth Squad get him on the stand and if he can list the 57 states he went to and present enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt he actually did he can go free.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I think you have the better case, but I don't think you're helping it. Anyway, if you want a reply: Of course there it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go to 57 states. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied, and in fact it's extremely probable that he did not lie.

So you're saying he did go to 57 states?

You may be up on charges next.

 

[dismal]

Ignoring for the moment the Supreme Court has found that false speech is protected speech, what exactly are you proposing?

You want Trump to appoint a Truth Commission to prosecute the purveyors of fake news?

Non-commercial false speech is protected speech.

Commercial false speech is generally considered fraud.

All we need to do is consider political speech a form of commercial speech.

I know I don’t say this frequently, particularly to you, but that is an excellent point! There is little difference between someone wanting me to buy a product and someone wanting to represent my interests in running the country. If they lie about either, it’s fraudulent.

aa


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So, all those people at the Democrat convention who introduced Hillary Clinton as "the Next President of the United States of America" - how many years do they get?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

OK, fair enough, let's have Trump's Truth Squad get him on the stand and if he can list the 57 states he went to and present enough evidence to create a reasonable doubt he actually did he can go free.

I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I think you have the better case, but I don't think you're helping it. Anyway, if you want a reply: Of course there it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go to 57 states. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied, and in fact it's extremely probable that he did not lie.

So you're saying he did go to 57 states?

You may be up on charges next.

As I said, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I thought you were being sarcastic, and was wondering why you would use sarcasm in this context, since it does not seem to help your case, and there seem to be good ways of defending your position. However, now I'm beginning to suspect you actually are interpreting my words as your posts, taken at face value, would imply. If you are using sarcasm, you're being obscure enough to make it look like it's not, which is not helping your case, either.

So, I'm not sure what to make of your replies to me, but I will assume for the sake of the argument that you're not being sarcastic. If you are, please say so, because it's not working.

Anyway, no, I'm not saying that he did go to 57 states. But let me try to explain in greater detail: As I said, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go. In other words, if would be unreasonable (obviously) to suspect that he might have gone to 57 states, at least if one is aware of the fact that there aren't so many states. So, obviously, his statement is false.

On the other hand, it is not at all obvious that he lied. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied. And in fact, he very probably did not lie. It would make no sense for him to say he did go to 57 states while being aware of the fact that there are no 57 states, as it would obviously be detrimental for his position, and also obviously people would even laugh at him (and, indeed, one can hear the people listening to his speech openly laughing when he said that).

It is far more probable that he was not aware when he said that of the fact that there aren't so many states, and thought they were more than 57 (listen to the speech if you like). Now, probably somewhere in his brain Obama knew there weren't so many states, and with more time, when he was not tired, etc., he would have realized that. But he was (very probably) not aware of that when he said that. In any event, if political lies were a felony, it would be up to the prosecutor to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Obama did lie - rather than making a mistake. I'm pretty sure no prosecutor could establish that.

Remember, Malintent has not proposed criminalizing political false speech. It's true that after you used the expression "false speech" in response to his OP, he used it as well, but it seems clear to me that under the implicit understanding that you were also talking about lies (if you want more precision, about knowingly spreading false information for political gain), not just about false statements.

That said, if you actually believe you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama knowingly spread false information (or attempted to do so) in the context of your example, I would like to see your evidence and arguments for that. I don't think you have any chances of establishing that, though, but I'm willing to listen and discuss the matter if you want. Personally, though, I would recommend adjusting your arguments to hit the right target (i.e., what your oppnents actually put forth).

 

[Hermit]

The real issue that lying by politicians is accepted by the voting public. If voters rebelled against it and liars lost elections, the lying would quickly recede.

It's a case of "S/He's a lying bastard, but at least s/he is our lying bastard. Hence the baying for Hillary Clinton's blood by the Republicans and Trump's by the Democrats. Both sides ignore the alleged lies uttered by members of their own side or deny that what those members said constitutes a lie or is not a sufficiently serious one to warrant punitive action. It's all way too partisan.

Here in Australia, and I guess may other parliamentary systems, politicians enjoy special protection. No matter what they say in either house, they cannot be taken to court for libel, slander or any other alleged offence. This immunity is meant to give them complete liberty to speak the truth, even if they don't have evidence for it that would stand up in a court of law. They are not silenced by fear of any threats. Of course the same immunity enables them to lie without having to fear any consequences. This immunity does not apply to anything they say outside their respective houses, and the party they belong to can take disciplinary action in either case.

 

[dismal]

So you're saying he did go to 57 states?

You may be up on charges next.

As I said, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I thought you were being sarcastic, and was wondering why you would use sarcasm in this context, since it does not seem to help your case, and there seem to be good ways of defending your position. However, now I'm beginning to suspect you actually are interpreting my words as your posts, taken at face value, would imply. If you are using sarcasm, you're being obscure enough to make it look like it's not, which is not helping your case, either.

So, I'm not sure what to make of your replies to me, but I will assume for the sake of the argument that you're not being sarcastic. If you are, please say so, because it's not working.

Anyway, no, I'm not saying that he did go to 57 states. But let me try to explain in greater detail: As I said, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go. In other words, if would be unreasonable (obviously) to suspect that he might have gone to 57 states, at least if one is aware of the fact that there aren't so many states. So, obviously, his statement is false.

On the other hand, it is not at all obvious that he lied. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied. And in fact, he very probably did not lie. It would make no sense for him to say he did go to 57 states while being aware of the fact that there are no 57 states, as it would obviously be detrimental for his position, and also obviously people would even laugh at him (and, indeed, one can hear the people listening to his speech openly laughing when he said that).

It is far more probable that he was not aware when he said that of the fact that there aren't so many states, and thought they were more than 57 (listen to the speech if you like). Now, probably somewhere in his brain Obama knew there weren't so many states, and with more time, when he was not tired, etc., he would have realized that. But he was (very probably) not aware of that when he said that. In any event, if political lies were a felony, it would be up to the prosecutor to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Obama did lie - rather than making a mistake. I'm pretty sure no prosecutor could establish that.

Remember, Malintent has not proposed criminalizing political false speech. It's true that after you used the expression "false speech" in response to his OP, he used it as well, but it seems clear to me that under the implicit understanding that you were also talking about lies (if you want more precision, about knowingly spreading false information for political gain), not just about false statements.

That said, if you actually believe you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama knowingly spread false information (or attempted to do so) in the context of your example, I would like to see your evidence and arguments for that. I don't think you have any chances of establishing that, though, but I'm willing to listen and discuss the matter if you want. Personally, though, I would recommend adjusting your arguments to hit the right target (i.e., what your oppnents actually put forth).

So, it's you agree he said something that objectively was not true but you feeeel in your heart that he didn't mean it?

Sounds like we're not only going to need a Truth Squad but a Feelings Squad to assess what people intended.

Oh well, I'm sure Trump will sort all that out.

Now, as to those people at the convention who introduced Hillary as "the Next President of the USA". They were a) objectively wrong and b) intentionally saying what they said, right?

I guess it doesn't matter what you think. Trump will sort it out.

 

[Malintent]

Strongly agree with your second point. Public funding of elections and make it illegal to take money from anywhere else including the politician themself. Get money out of politics. It would make a huge difference. Nobody should be able to buy an election.

I want my politicians to be interested in making their district prosperous and the population happy... not interested in making a lot of money at their jobs. Public servants should be revered as selfless agents of public good.

Capitalism is good, but not in industries that provide fundamental services, like governance, medical, and educational services.

 

[Malintent]

Ignoring for the moment the Supreme Court has found that false speech is protected speech, what exactly are you proposing?

You want Trump to appoint a Truth Commission to prosecute the purveyors of fake news?

Non-commercial false speech is protected speech.

Commercial false speech is generally considered fraud.

All we need to do is consider political speech a form of commercial speech.

This. This is well said, and represents what I was trying to get at.

 

[Malintent]

So you're saying he did go to 57 states?

You may be up on charges next.

As I said, I'm not sure why you're trying to argue in this way. I thought you were being sarcastic, and was wondering why you would use sarcasm in this context, since it does not seem to help your case, and there seem to be good ways of defending your position. However, now I'm beginning to suspect you actually are interpreting my words as your posts, taken at face value, would imply. If you are using sarcasm, you're being obscure enough to make it look like it's not, which is not helping your case, either.

So, I'm not sure what to make of your replies to me, but I will assume for the sake of the argument that you're not being sarcastic. If you are, please say so, because it's not working.

Anyway, no, I'm not saying that he did go to 57 states. But let me try to explain in greater detail: As I said, it's beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not go. In other words, if would be unreasonable (obviously) to suspect that he might have gone to 57 states, at least if one is aware of the fact that there aren't so many states. So, obviously, his statement is false.

On the other hand, it is not at all obvious that he lied. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied. And in fact, he very probably did not lie. It would make no sense for him to say he did go to 57 states while being aware of the fact that there are no 57 states, as it would obviously be detrimental for his position, and also obviously people would even laugh at him (and, indeed, one can hear the people listening to his speech openly laughing when he said that).

It is far more probable that he was not aware when he said that of the fact that there aren't so many states, and thought they were more than 57 (listen to the speech if you like). Now, probably somewhere in his brain Obama knew there weren't so many states, and with more time, when he was not tired, etc., he would have realized that. But he was (very probably) not aware of that when he said that. In any event, if political lies were a felony, it would be up to the prosecutor to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Obama did lie - rather than making a mistake. I'm pretty sure no prosecutor could establish that.

Remember, Malintent has not proposed criminalizing political false speech. It's true that after you used the expression "false speech" in response to his OP, he used it as well, but it seems clear to me that under the implicit understanding that you were also talking about lies (if you want more precision, about knowingly spreading false information for political gain), not just about false statements.

That said, if you actually believe you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama knowingly spread false information (or attempted to do so) in the context of your example, I would like to see your evidence and arguments for that. I don't think you have any chances of establishing that, though, but I'm willing to listen and discuss the matter if you want. Personally, though, I would recommend adjusting your arguments to hit the right target (i.e., what your oppnents actually put forth).

So, it's you agree he said something that objectively was not true but you feeeel in your heart that he didn't mean it?

Sounds like we're not only going to need a Truth Squad but a Feelings Squad to assess what people intended.

Oh well, I'm sure Trump will sort all that out.

Now, as to those people at the convention who introduced Hillary as "the Next President of the USA". They were a) objectively wrong and b) intentionally saying what they said, right?

I guess it doesn't matter what you think. Trump will sort it out.

There certainly could be concern for the 1984 thought police if you litigate on intentionality alone. Loren said it succinctly... there are already laws about committing fraud. Apply these same laws to politicians. They wish to sell their services in exchange for votes... so I want consumer protection of our elected public servants.. .cause they should be, you know, SERVING... not helping themselves.

 

[Elixir]

There certainly could be concern for the 1984 thought police if you litigate on intentionality alone. Loren said it succinctly... there are already laws about committing fraud. Apply these same laws to politicians. They wish to sell their services in exchange for votes... so I want consumer protection of our elected public servants.. .cause they should be, you know, SERVING... not helping themselves.

The time for that has passed. Greet the New Day, when a career in politics is the gateway to satiating boundless greed and hunger for power. It's the Trump way.
Not satisfied with your $1000 bonus after 20 years of service to Home Depot (less than $1/week for your tenure)? Too bad, Sucker - you should have gone into politics. If you were a Republican in Congress by now, lying to protect your Dear Leader, you too could reap millions from tax breaks - on your private jet alone.
It's not Trump's fault that you're too damn lazy to go out and buy yourself a private jet.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

So, it's you agree he said something that objectively was not true but you feeeel in your heart that he didn't mean it?

No, that is not remotely what I said, nor my position. It is what I have clearly explained. It is not about feelings. Just as there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Obama was to 57 states, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Obama knowingly made a false assertion when he said that. On the basis of the available information, a normal human observer can make proper probabilistic assessments about both matters. That is how we make assessments pretty much all the time. It is so probable that he did not go to 57 states that it is well beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it is not remotely as probable - and not even probable, in context - that he knowingly made a false assertion.

If knowingly spreading false information for political gain were criminalized, in order to convict Obama according to that law, it would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly spread false information. The evidence in no way allows a reasonable person to establish that.

Sounds like we're not only going to need a Truth Squad but a Feelings Squad to assess what people intended.

If it sounds like that to you, it is because you're doing to me what some of your usual opponents regularly do to their opponents.

Oh well, I'm sure Trump will sort all that out.

Your sarcasm is out of place, since you're badly losing this debate. And it's a shame. You have the better case against the proposed criminalization. But instead of targeting your opponents' views, you needlessly target a weak caricature. Here, a question is whether you are aware of that. I used to think that you probably were, and that you were engaging in some sort of sophisticated meta-sarcasm and parody in addition to the overt sarcasm, but now after your repeated replies, I've updated the probability: you probably (though not beyond a reasonable doubt) are speaking what you believe is true.

Now, as to those people at the convention who introduced Hillary as "the Next President of the USA". They were a) objectively wrong and b) intentionally saying what they said, right?

But both a) and b) won't cut it. You would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they were knowingly spreading false information (for political gain, but that part is easy). There is no way you could establish that in a court of law.

I guess it doesn't matter what you think. Trump will sort it out.

Again, this is out of place sarcasm. If you're engaging in some sophisticated meta-game and you're not just confused about what I'm saying, I can assure you it is not at all clear at all. I recommend you adjust your tactics (if you're just confused, never mind).

 

[dismal]

No, that is not remotely what I said, nor my position. It is what I have clearly explained. It is not about feelings. Just as there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Obama was to 57 states, there is an objective fact of the matter as to whether Obama knowingly made a false assertion when he said that. On the basis of the available information, a normal human observer can make proper probabilistic assessments about both matters. That is how we make assessments pretty much all the time. It is so probable that he did not go to 57 states that it is well beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it is not remotely as probable - and not even probable, in context - that he knowingly made a false assertion.

If knowingly spreading false information for political gain were criminalized, in order to convict Obama according to that law, it would have to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly spread false information. The evidence in no way allows a reasonable person to establish that.


If it sounds like that to you, it is because you're doing to me what some of your usual opponents regularly do to their opponents.

Oh well, I'm sure Trump will sort all that out.

Your sarcasm is out of place, since you're badly losing this debate. And it's a shame. You have the better case against the proposed criminalization. But instead of targeting your opponents' views, you needlessly target a weak caricature. Here, a question is whether you are aware of that. I used to think that you probably were, and that you were engaging in some sort of sophisticated meta-sarcasm and parody in addition to the overt sarcasm, but now after your repeated replies, I've updated the probability: you probably (though not beyond a reasonable doubt) are speaking what you believe is true.

Now, as to those people at the convention who introduced Hillary as "the Next President of the USA". They were a) objectively wrong and b) intentionally saying what they said, right?

But both a) and b) won't cut it. You would need to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they were knowingly spreading false information (for political gain, but that part is easy). There is no way you could establish that in a court of law.

I guess it doesn't matter what you think. Trump will sort it out.

Again, this is out of place sarcasm. If you're engaging in some sophisticated meta-game and you're not just confused about what I'm saying, I can assure you it is not at all clear at all. I recommend you adjust your tactics (if you're just confused, never mind).

OK, let's try a series of questions:

1) Did Obama say he had been to 57 states? (I think the answer is "Yes")
2) Is what he said objectively not true? (Again, yes)
3) Does this mean he spread false or misleading information? (Yes)
4) Is he thus guilty of some crime? (I'm going to go with "it depends" on how you define the crime the chicken bone waving people here are wanting to enact. You seem to assume there will be some "out" for intent. )
5) If there is an out for "intent" does that require someone to gauge what someone's intent was? (Yes. Seems tautological.)
6) Who will that person be? (Not you. Assuming this is a federal crime, Trump and Trump's appointees will have at a minimum have prosecutorial discretion over it. Perhaps a jury will ultimately decide. Let's hope it's not one of those juries of average citizens drawn from the voter roles who we don't trust to gauge whether politicians are lying though, right? )

In any case, we can observe this "intent" test clearly takes us out of the realm of assessing objective facts. We must divine someone's thoughts. It seems like quite a loophole. I can make some totally outrageous, objectively false claim (like Nancy Pelosi saying not passing a bill would cost 500 million jobs per day) and when called on it just say "oopsie, I misspoke". Did you really land in Bosnia under sniper fire Hillary? 'oopsie, I misspoke". Did you really not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, Bill? "oopsie, I misspoke". Ironically, this defense seems the most applicable the more factually outrageous a claim is. Like when you think Guam is going to tip over.

 

[Malintent]

If a false claim causes harm, then the same recourse should be available to those harmed by the false claim.

To use that example, if harm can be shown to have been brought to any person by Obama having said that he visited 57 states (a claim that I am not familiar with, but will look up momentarily out of curiosity), and the legal recourse was in place at the time, then yes he should have been obligated to clarify, correct, or walk back the statement as broadly as it was made.

The law, as I proposed, would obligate correction (or face contempt of court), not involve jail time or fines or any such thing beyond existing libel / slander liability.

 

[Malintent]

According to Snopes, Obama said "57" instead of "47" due to being overtired during campaigning. He was quoted as saying he was aware he misspoke about that and he also said he might have accidently said 100 million instead of 100 thousand victims of a cyclone.

Talking with reporters at a later campaign stop, Senator Obama expressed concern that he’d recently misstated both the number of potential victims of a recent cyclone in Burma and the number of states he’d visited, saying: “I hope I said 100 thousand people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It’s a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh …”

So why is that a big deal? Who was harmed and what gain would Obama have gotten? I cannot see any such. But, Snopes goes on to report WHY people like dismal might remember that 57 number, or even care about it...

Quickly enough, based on the (spurious) rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim, someone came up with the fanciful idea that his mention of “fifty-seven states” was not a dog-tired campaigner’s simply misstating “forty-seven” as “fifty-seven,” but a reference to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has 57 member states

Oh right... it was a black / Muslim thing. Can't let that opportunity get away, can ya.

I half-expected this. That is why I thought I would look up why something so benign was even being mentioned. Par for course.

 

[dismal]

If a false claim causes harm, then the same recourse should be available to those harmed by the false claim.

To use that example, if harm can be shown to have been brought to any person by Obama having said that he visited 57 states (a claim that I am not familiar with, but will look up momentarily out of curiosity), and the legal recourse was in place at the time, then yes he should have been obligated to clarify, correct, or walk back the statement as broadly as it was made.

The law, as I proposed, would obligate correction (or face contempt of court), not involve jail time or fines or any such thing beyond existing libel / slander liability.

Hmm, I think politicians harm me more when they pass certain laws than when they say things that aren't true.

But, that aside, you're saying that anyone who lost their doctor in the wake of Obama saying "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" should be able to sue Obama personally?

Every family in the USA should be able to sue Obama for saying Obamacare would save them $2500 on their health insurance premiums?

 

[dismal]

According to Snopes, Obama said "57" instead of "47" due to being overtired during campaigning.

How do snopes know that?

Anyway, is this another loophole? A politician is allowed to spread false information if they are sufficiently tired? Your commitment to truth seems to have a lot of outs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

According to Snopes, Obama said "57" instead of "47" due to being overtired during campaigning.

How do snopes know that?

Anyway, is this another loophole? A politician is allowed to spread false information if they are sufficiently tired? Your commitment to truth seems to have a lot of outs.

Do you never misspeak? There is a difference between misspeaking (due to being tired or whatever else) and deliberately spreading false information.

 

[dismal]

According to Snopes, Obama said "57" instead of "47" due to being overtired during campaigning.

How do snopes know that?

Anyway, is this another loophole? A politician is allowed to spread false information if they are sufficiently tired? Your commitment to truth seems to have a lot of outs.

Do you never misspeak? There is a difference between misspeaking (due to being tired or whatever else) and deliberately spreading false information.

What's the difference to the audience? (Aka the victim)

 

[SimpleDon]

I think that this suggestion is best left alone. I agree with dismal. Political speech has to be the freest speech. Otherwise, it is a guarantee that the party in power will use this law against political lying against the opposition party exclusively.

The right has created a massive propaganda machine, but at some point it won't be enough, they will need a law such as this one being proposed to shutdown the truth. Don't hand them such a law.

I think that we just have to trust the system and that the majority elected by a minority current administration and Congress will be crushed under the weight of their demonstrated incompetence.