Has the First Amendment become a hindrance to democracy?

[Derec]

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

How about CNN? Better contrast to FOX News as they are both cable news networks.


That was a pretty blatant lie by CNN's Ana Cabrera, don't you think?

 

[Elixir]

So the New York Times is concerned about the spread of misinformation? THAT New York Times? Is this a joke?

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

If social media companies want to be treated as public forums...blah blah blah

So... that's a "NO".

 

[Jarhyn]

There is a difference between free speech and lies. There ought be a taboo around making claims of truth without evidence, and there ought to be reprisal for a false statement in the presence of knowledge, evidence of knowledge, of expectation of knowledge of the truth.

The right wing blogosphere is lying. In fact they are pulling out important context that makes the text. Much like if I edited together words of someone else's post in ellipses I could put together any absurd thing: "This is ... the truth" and all that. It's shaping the truth into a lie, which is one of the most offensive parts of it all. Pay no attention to the rest of the truth behind the curtain! It's just doing it for larger chunks of a much broader political conversation. The ethics and the effects are no different.

It's not free speech to do that. It's lies for personal gain.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am not sure of the feasibility of regulating "lies", but I do feel that the intentional placement of dangerous misinformation into the public sphere needs to be curtailed somehow. ...
Speech of any sort needs to be permitted, and IMO should be accompanied by information about its source. ... But the damage being done to our environment, our economy and our society at large, is largely the product of malicious interests that have leveraged the fact of assumed "freedom" to mislead, deceive and misdirect the actions (incl votes) of the American public.

But there is truth out there, if not Truth. I think the scientific method is something that is almost universally agreed upon as a means for converging upon, if not determining, what is true. Maybe there's a starting point in there somewhere?

Personally, I was thinking of an international consortium of scientists... even then, the vetting process could be corrupted. It's not an easy issue, but an important one.

So, in the interest of saving the environment, economy and society from misinformation from malicious interests, we'd have a peer-review process to determine what's actually scientifically true? And the government would be empowered to have every media outlet from Facebook to the Washington Post who provide a platform to some scientific illiterate who wants to spread his favorite idiocy be required to accompany that disinformation with the scientific facts and an explanation of who's really behind the attempt to obscure them? So we can save the planet by making sure the public know better than to listen to rightist wingnuts deluding themselves that global warming isn't real and leftist wingnuts deluding themselves that way to solve global warming isn't nuclear power?

 

[Elixir]

.... the government would be empowered to..;.

Are you crazy? Fuck no! That's that whole point.
All that such a panel could possibly do would be to identify true or fraudulent/false information, label it as such and provide the basis of their judgment. It would be a verification service not unlike the current "fact checkers", but on steroids, carrying the weight of intenational, a-political, well respected authorities in the realm of science. When it comes to opinions expressed as opinions, they would necessarily be hands-off.

Beyond that, you get into the realm of punitive bodies empowered to take actions against individuals and groups, which is rarely if ever a beneficial (or benevolent) endeavor.

So we can save the planet by making sure the public know better...

You're aiming WAY too high. The public is an idiot. All you can do is provide the individuals who comprise "the public" the choice to know better about x.y or z.

There is a difference between free speech and lies. There ought be a taboo around making claims of truth without evidence, and there ought to be reprisal for a false statement in the presence of knowledge, evidence of knowledge, of expectation of knowledge of the truth.

Yeah that, but the only "reprisal" that wouldn't step over the line, would be to label an individual or entity as a good or bad source.
The body I have in mind would take time to establish its objectivity and inspire confidence in the accuracy of its pronouncements. At best, it could make a dent in the problem. I don't think there's a silver bullet possible.

 

[ZiprHead]

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

How about CNN? Better contrast to FOX News as they are both cable news networks.


That was a pretty blatant lie by CNN's Ana Cabrera, don't you think?

That's not what I asked.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Putin is exploiting the inherent weakness in democracy, as soon as you limit free speech in such a way that there is an official source of censorship, you create an official source of information. If you were to limit speech to "proven or eyewitness " information or some variation, you have created an official narrative because almost no information can be "proven". If you can cover up a crime even with a small degree of success, then you can limit the ability of the public to get any information at all.

The only minimal policy I can imagine affecting this feedback loop is massive transparency and criminal punishment for financial crimes along with systemic limits on power including wealth accumulation.

But that's not much of a policy proposal

Exactly--this is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

I would like to see a system by which libel laws can be more effectively used against these guys, though.

 

[Jarhyn]

Putin is exploiting the inherent weakness in democracy, as soon as you limit free speech in such a way that there is an official source of censorship, you create an official source of information. If you were to limit speech to "proven or eyewitness " information or some variation, you have created an official narrative because almost no information can be "proven". If you can cover up a crime even with a small degree of success, then you can limit the ability of the public to get any information at all.

The only minimal policy I can imagine affecting this feedback loop is massive transparency and criminal punishment for financial crimes along with systemic limits on power including wealth accumulation.

But that's not much of a policy proposal

Exactly--this is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

I would like to see a system by which libel laws can be more effectively used against these guys, though.

This is why we must acknowledge the taboo, this problem you mention here.

But there are also cases wherein it is necessarily evident, as is an argument for making regulations not against speech but more about false speech, such as is a case of malicious editing. If I edited together someone's words, omitting context, here on these forums where we value free speech, I would be banned. That isn't censorship, and we all know it.

The question is whether an edited omission of context while presenting the remainder as evidence factually counter to the story in full context is criminal.

 

[Trausti]

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

So... that's a "NO".

Dude, an easy search shows how it recklessly spreads disinformation. It’s where Walter Duranty got his Pulitzer, FFS.

The collapse of the New York Times’ “Russian bounties” campaign

 

[ZiprHead]

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

So... that's a "NO".

Dude, an easy search shows how it recklessly spreads disinformation. It’s where Walter Duranty got his Pulitzer, FFS.

The collapse of the New York Times’ “Russian bounties” campaign

So you failed to answer my challenge too.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dude, an easy search shows how it recklessly spreads disinformation. It’s where Walter Duranty got his Pulitzer, FFS.

Do you mean the same NYT that called Duranty's reporting "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper"?

 

[Jarhyn]

Please tell me the story of Duranty. I have Trausti muted either way. I want the context of this.

 

[ZiprHead]

Please tell me the story of Duranty. I have Trausti muted either way. I want the context of this.

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.

In response to Stalin's Apologist (1990), the critical biography by Sally J. Taylor,[6] The New York Times assigned a member of its editorial board, Karl Meyer, to write a signed editorial about Duranty's work for the Times. In a scathing piece, Meyer said (24 June 1990) that Duranty's articles were "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." Duranty, Meyer said, had bet his career on Stalin's rise and "strove to preserve it by ignoring or excusing Stalin's crimes."[13] The Pulitzer Board in 1990 reconsidered the prize but decided to preserve it as awarded.

Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

 

[Jarhyn]

Please tell me the story of Duranty. I have Trausti muted either way. I want the context of this.

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.

In response to Stalin's Apologist (1990), the critical biography by Sally J. Taylor,[6] The New York Times assigned a member of its editorial board, Karl Meyer, to write a signed editorial about Duranty's work for the Times. In a scathing piece, Meyer said (24 June 1990) that Duranty's articles were "some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper." Duranty, Meyer said, had bet his career on Stalin's rise and "strove to preserve it by ignoring or excusing Stalin's crimes."[13] The Pulitzer Board in 1990 reconsidered the prize but decided to preserve it as awarded.

Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

Wait .. so, Trausti is bringing in the age of yellow journalism as a criticism... Almost a hundred years later.

 

[Trausti]

He was the NYT Moscow bureau chief 1922-36 and and was pretty much a stooge for Stalin. He downplayed the Ukraine and USSR famine, some say making it worse or at least lessening relief efforts.



Do you think you would ever see something like the above coming from Fox News?

 Walter Duranty

Wait .. so, Trausti is bringing in the age of yellow journalism as a criticism... Almost a hundred years later.

So Jaryn is just gonna ignore the false Russian bounties story, the breathless reporting on the Russia Collusion Hoax. Yeah, that's that Jaryn we know. Head in sand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Could you provide some cases of NYT misinformation then compare them to the outright lies that come from Fox News?

So... that's a "NO".

Dude, an easy search shows how it recklessly spreads disinformation. It’s where Walter Duranty got his Pulitzer, FFS.

The collapse of the New York Times’ “Russian bounties” campaign

WSWS as a credible source??

 

[JohnG]

I think this was addressed in the Supreme Court in the US during the Civil Rights movement involving segregation. I cant remember the exact case, but something about the court shooting down a case where someone claiming it’s impeding their religious right to exclude blacks from their establishment because the bible states that theirs is the “superior race”. The court stated that no freedom can involve taking away someone else’s rights. Something to that effect.

 

[Trausti]

Dude, an easy search shows how it recklessly spreads disinformation. It’s where Walter Duranty got his Pulitzer, FFS.

The collapse of the New York Times’ “Russian bounties” campaign

WSWS as a credible source??

Loren, it's your buddy Trausti. Ya think I'm a commie? When even the commies call out the New York Times' bullshit, that's some smelly bullshit. Point being is that the NYT is responsible for spreading a lot of misinformation. If "misinformation" is a basis to curtail First Amendment rights, then ya gotta shut down the NYT.

In ‘Russian Bounty’ Story, Evidence-Free Claims From Nameless Spies Became Fact Overnight

 

[Trausti]

The Media.

 

[Tigers!]

Please tell me the story of Duranty. I have Trausti muted either way. I want the context of this.

Free speech in action.