Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?

[Mustang]

One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world. It takes many forms. You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...

Personally, I'm sick of it. Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it. They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.

But what about when it comes into your home via TV or the Internet?

While there are truth in advertising laws when it comes to companies making claims about their products, politicians, and partisan TV commentators can seemingly say anything they want, regardless of how outrageously untrue it is, and there are no consequences.

I know that some false statements are honest mistakes. I also know that many false statements and claims are intentional. People are intentionally trying to muddy the waters and confusing honest people in the process.

So, in the interest of honest political debate on the issues, and in keeping with the need to insure that the public is honestly informed on those issues, should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV? For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.

If this plan was implemented, there shouldn't be as many people in this country who are so poorly informed on the issues because they've been manipulated by dishonest people.

 

[xsited1]

I like that idea!

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

 

[Mustang]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lying? I don't think so. Libel is illegal. So is slander. So is lying to the police. If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lying? I don't think so. Libel is illegal. So is slander. So is lying to the police. If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.

You can't slander and you can't lie under oath.. other than that.. you can say pretty much what you want.... about Conservatives that is.

 

[Steelplate]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lying? I don't think so. Libel is illegal. So is slander. So is lying to the police. If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.

I can say my mother was a donut... thtat's lie, but not slander. Come on man.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lying? I don't think so. Libel is illegal. So is slander. So is lying to the police. If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.

I can say my mother was a donut... that's a lie, but not slander. Come on man.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Didn't Dr Evils's father claim he invented the question mark?

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lying? I don't think so. Libel is illegal. So is slander. So is lying to the police. If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.

Actually, it does to some degree. Libel is not a crime; it's a tort. Meaning that nobody can go to jail for doing it; they can only be sued. Same for slander.

Political speech, of course, is very strongly protected by the First Amendment, which is why it has been filled with very deliberate lies from the earliest days.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

The press is a very unique animal...

 

[Big Black Dog]

If this ever becomes the law of the land, we will never see a politician on tv again!

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Historically, news organizations have policed themselves in this area.

They need revenue to survive, which is tied directly to the sizes of their audiences, which in turn has a lot to do with the organization's credibility.

 

[Mustang]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lying? I don't think so. Libel is illegal. So is slander. So is lying to the police. If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.

I can say my mother was a donut... that's a lie, but not slander. Come on man.

You think that anyone would be fooled into believing your mother was a donut just because you said it? Come on man.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

The most able poster above me helped explain to you, law school reject, why the first amendment comes with ample conditions to be exercised, but does not allow you to yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

I won't go further with this freedom of speech thing, but turn to tort law and civil penalties for actions which are intentionally or negligently harmful. We think of tort law when we sue doctors or drug companies for negligence. But the argument for the use of tort law for intentionally false, misleading, libelous or slanderous speech is much more sympathetic to the general interest of the community in obtaining proper information from press and media sources.

Why would Fox News viewers be so opposed to something aimed at keeping their information source honest?

First, calm down. I would never waste my time on anything as absurd as law school.

Second, FTR, I have no problem with torts for libel or slander, but once a government starts imposing its own fines I get extremely nervous. I'm surprised that so many others here do not.

 

[Steelplate]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Historically, news organizations have policed themselves in this area.

They need revenue to survive, which is tied directly to the sizes of their audiences, which in turn has a lot to do with the organization's credibility.

So what you're saying is that truth doesn't matter. It's all about revenue and audience size.

and yes... HISTORICALLY, news organizations have policed themselves... but you know as well as I do that they are not doing so now. I want truth, not opinion in my news.

and No... I don't watch Maddow or Olbermann any more than I watch Beck or Hannity.

 

[shintao]

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact', not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made.

 

[Wonky Pundit]

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Historically, news organizations have policed themselves in this area.

They need revenue to survive, which is tied directly to the sizes of their audiences, which in turn has a lot to do with the organization's credibility.

So what you're saying is that truth doesn't matter. It's all about revenue and audience size.

and yes... HISTORICALLY, news organizations have policed themselves... but you know as well as I do that they are not doing so now. I want truth, not opinion in my news.

and No... I don't watch Maddow or Olbermann any more than I watch Beck or Hannity.

Oh, truth matters (pun intended). It's just not the primary concern.

Remember, however, that there's always been a "gutter press," beginning with the tabloids, that people read much more for the sake of entertainment than news. FOX and MSNBC, sadly, have decided to market themselves along similar lines.

 

[Flopper]

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.

So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.

Yes, the first amendment protects liars provided those lies do not constitute libel or scandal.

It a lie is big enough and repeated often enough, it will be believed.

 

[Steelplate]

Ok... granted... but you can clearly see on this message board how fanatical rhetoric passed off as fact by established news outlets are affecting this country.

in response to wonky