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

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You can yell fire in a crowded theater. Anyone that tried to explain the 1st Amendment to you and left you with the impression that this is not permissible under the 1st, or even current law, left you out in the cold.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.

Not exactly surprised that you support fascism.

 

[daveman]

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.

Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.

Not exactly surprised that you support fascism.

Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.

Will you support such a law if the GOP is in charge?

In charge of what...the law?!??

No party is "in charge" of the law, you Dittohead, we're a nation of laws, not men.

It shouldn't matter WHO'S "in charge."

Capice?!?

 

[manifold]

Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall

^ We're now up to seven epic failures of humanity that voted yes.

 

[Steelplate]

To summarize this thread:

Well, actually, 2 of the 5 people who support this idea are "Conservatives", and as many "Liberals" voted "no" as did "yes".

But you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good partisan rant, right?

He just knows the truth about FoxNews and he's scared that if something like this were to happen, his favorite channel will have nothing to talk about.

 

[Steelplate]

Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall

^ We're now up to seven epic failures of humanity that voted yes.

Epic failures of Humanity? That's a little extreme, isn't it? Just because we voted yes in a meaningless Message board poll?

Maybe some of us have grown weary of people like Beck and Hannity, Maddow and Olbermann. People who just stir shit instead of reporting the news and letting people think for themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall

^ We're now up to seven epic failures of humanity that voted yes.

Epic failures of Humanity? That's a little extreme, isn't it? Just because we voted yes in a meaningless Message board poll?

Maybe some of us have grown weary of people like Beck and Hannity, Maddow and Olbermann. People who just stir shit instead of reporting the news and letting people think for themselves.

You're voting for silencing speech you don't like. You're voting for empowering politcians to go after people who criticitize them. And yet you don't see the giant problem there or why it would be a bad thing if our leaders could pick and choose who they could punish simply because they spoke their mind.

 

[Avatar4321]

Im amazed that you guys in opposition to free speech still havent been able to answer who you think should determine what is false or a lie and what is true.

 

[Jack Fate]

I think BO should form a "Truth Committee" and appoint Joe Biden as the Chairman. Joe is familiar with plagiarism.

 

[Steelplate]

Im amazed that you guys in opposition to free speech still havent been able to answer who you think should determine what is false or a lie and what is true.

That wasn't part of the question, was it?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Aside from slander, we all have free speech.

The excuse that people are being mislead? It's up to each person to do thier homework.

Taking anyones veiws as a statement of fact, and not listening to an opposing veiw is idiotic.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There's no good reason to vote yes that I can think of.

It would be run by the Fed, further increasing it's cost and power.
It would become a political weapon. Whoever is in charge can fuckover whoever is not.
It could be someones opinion as to what a lie is.

No, this is just more tryanny.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You have a penchant for absurdity. That's great in comedy. Not so great if you want to be taken seriously.

Says the guy calling for "fines" on those who speak in ways he doesn't like..

ROFL

Oh the irony....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have been following politics for 50 years and without exception every political figure lies in one way or another. Today's lies are no worse than yesterdays lies. What is worse today is the repetition and embellishment by the media.

By today's standards a mistake is a lie as is reversal of positions or a facial expression. Even silence is interpreted as a lie.

We now have a free media, which distresses many. For years, America's own Josef Goebbels, to wit Edward Murrow, managed the news the American people were privy to. When three networks ruled the airwaves and the NY Times rode roughshod on print, it was an easy task to manage information and ensure the people thought what they were supposed to think.

But Murrow is dead, the USSR has fallen and cable plus the internet have made it impossible to manufacture news the way it was done for so long.

People now have the ability to see all side of any issue, not just what the party wants them to know. Some are desperate to return to the days when the only information available to the public was that which the left elite wanted known.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In charge of what...the law?!??

In charge of deciding what is "true."

A fascist moron like you just ASSUMES that Obama will be the ruler deciding what is "truth."

If the tide changes, then it may be Olbermann and Stewart in chains, rather than Limbaugh and Beck as is your dream.

 

[daveman]

Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.

Will you support such a law if the GOP is in charge?

In charge of what...the law?!??

No party is "in charge" of the law, you Dittohead, we're a nation of laws, not men.

It shouldn't matter WHO'S "in charge."

Capice?!?

No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.

 

[daveman]

To summarize this thread:

Well, actually, 2 of the 5 people who support this idea are "Conservatives", and as many "Liberals" voted "no" as did "yes".

But you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good partisan rant, right?

He just knows the truth about FoxNews and he's scared that if something like this were to happen, his favorite channel will have nothing to talk about.

You could be more stupid, but it would take some effort.

Damn, you lefties sure are afraid of Fox, aren't you?

 

[Intense]

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.

There are neither enough Courts, Cops, or Jail Cells, to deal with the problem.

 

[Steelplate]

Well, actually, 2 of the 5 people who support this idea are "Conservatives", and as many "Liberals" voted "no" as did "yes".

But you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good partisan rant, right?

He just knows the truth about FoxNews and he's scared that if something like this were to happen, his favorite channel will have nothing to talk about.

You could be more stupid, but it would take some effort.

Damn, you lefties sure are afraid of Fox, aren't you?

Afraid of Fox? Why should we be afraid of Fox? I was just commenting on your stupid picture showing a Muslim protest with a line pointing directly at Progressives. I'm more afraid of right wing extremism than I am of Fox. You fuckers are radicals. The muslim Picture could easily represent the Tea Party with a simple change of the Text... and it would probably be more accurate.