Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Apology Blackmail

 
I would like an example of how this is different than making pharma tell the side effects of their products they sell, or giving factual information on the capabilities of the products you sell. Free speech is inhibited where it directly harms others, is purposeful misinformation not harm to the voting process? A right it seems we go to great lengths to protect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merdle View Post
Indeed, it is interesting that we hold each other to higher standards than we hold politicians
Your name is "Merdle" from location "Northerly". Candidates have nearly everything known about them, I don't see your last 10 years of tax returns and college transcripts posted anywhere on this site. I wouldn't say you're held to a higher standard than politicians in the slightest. When you make wrong statements people correct them or ask you to correct them, much the same as people in the more public eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merdle View Post
I would like an example of how this is different than making pharma tell the side effects of their products they sell, or giving factual information on the capabilities of the products you sell. Free speech is inhibited where it directly harms others, is purposeful misinformation not harm to the voting process? A right it seems we go to great lengths to protect.
Purposeful misinformation to harm others is under libel laws. It's already illegal.

Libel laws only apply when you bring that person physical or emotional duress, or financial harm, etc etc. I'm talking about bringing harm to the process, like a hate group driving people to riot or attack a general group. I don't believe they are charged under libel, but it is recognized that their attempt to undermine the safety of others is not to be protected under free speech if it goes that far.

I'm not asking about what would usually be done in this circumstance, because we know nothing is usually done. I'm asking how would we punish politicians for purposefully spreading misinformation. The media has no obligation to cover their errors, or push them to give correct answers. There have actually been interviews that talk about how reporters avoid asking hard questions because now they have to pull strings to talk to the politicians, not the other way around. A politician can end an interview as soon as they don't want it, and if it isn't live on air, no one would even know. What part of our system is built to punish this Ben? Cthulhu? Somebody explain to me why this is allowed to continue, or how this is functional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merdle View Post
What part of our system is built to punish this Ben? Cthulhu? Somebody explain to me why this is allowed to continue, or how this is functional.
People correct it through the ballot box, not truth panels and fines. Pointing out flaws in the system just proves it's not perfect, I don't think anyone claims that. But I don't see any evidence that censorship of people's statements is going to fix more than it breaks.

I don't see how it's a violation of free speech if, in order to run for public office, politicians are held to a standard of making verifiably truthful statements. If they don't want to be subject to such a requirement, they don't have to run for office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
People correct it through the ballot box, not truth panels and fines. Pointing out flaws in the system just proves it's not perfect, I don't think anyone claims that. But I don't see any evidence that censorship of people's statements is going to fix more than it breaks.
Why does it have to require fines? Why can't there be an independent body that labels politicians based on their percentage of verifiably factual statements (with clear guideline for that body with regards to what is opinion and what is a factual statement), and that rating is annotated alongside the politician's name in news reports, when they appear on the media, etc.

All right, I can accept that. It seems your position is that the system is fine as is, in which case it would be pointless for me to ask you what could be done to improve it. Where we differ is that I think the amount of misinformation spread by politicians whether campaigning or in office is above and beyond what we should allow in the system.

As for 'correct it at the ballot box', I don't really think that is possible. If I know that person B is a liar, have proof they are a liar, and vote for Person A, Person B still has the support of everyone who did not find out the truth about his lie. It seems that a system like this, correcting at the ballot box, favors the liar over the honest politician.

EDIT: Actually my first statement is too simple. I mean your position seems to be that the system is not currently in need of a reform like this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlictoatl View Post
I don't see how it's a violation of free speech if, in order to run for public office, politicians are held to a standard of making verifiably truthful statements. If they don't want to be subject to such a requirement, they don't have to run for office.
It would depend on how you define "verifiably truthful" really. If we include Merdle's example of Romney's accusation of Obama trying to impose secularism as the official religion as a "verifiably untrue" statement and then Obama's "Republican war on women" rhetoric it's quite a huge restriction of freedom of speech.

If you go the other direction most of the "lies" I see publicized are simple mistakes.

Ooooh, it would be interesting to see how a committee like this would effect American English's 'fight bias'. I don't have the real wording for it, but English is built on making stuff sound like a battle, or a fight. We make war on stuff, we defeat stuff, hmmm this would be very interesting linguistically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
It would depend on how you define "verifiably truthful" really. If we include Merdle's example of Romney's accusation of Obama trying to impose secularism as the official religion as a "verifiably untrue" statement and then Obama's "Republican war on women" rhetoric it's quite a huge restriction of freedom of speech.
OK, but there are people well educated in rhetoric who could devise a set of guidelines that would allow for the time-honored tradition of rhetorical exchange while moving the state of dialogue away from bald misstatement of fact.

Quote:
If you go the other direction most of the "lies" I see publicized are simple mistakes.
Maybe.

That senator from Arizona who stated on the floor of Congress that "well over 90% of what Planned Plarenthood does" is abortions, should be required to verify that fact before putting it into public record, or be called out on a large, unignorable scale for the falsifier that he is.

If that was just a mistake, then the Senator's constituents should be made well aware that their Senator's incredibly uninformed. If it was a deliberate lie for political gain, they should also be made aware of that.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2017-11-19 09:00:09am local time
Myth-Weavers Status