CDZ [Washington State Governor] Inslee testifies in support of bill that makes spreading election result misinformation illegal

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

When I first heard about this bill I thought that it would be nice if there were consequences for intentionally lying about specific occurrences for the purpose of furthering some agenda But when I again heard about it on the news tonight, it caused a little unease.

The law, if passed, is restricted to only public officials so no private citizens, and it would appear to be tied to their official duties.

I'd love to hear arguments both for and against. Please remember this is the clean debate zone, thank you.

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Washington lawmakers heard testimony Friday on a proposed bill that would make it illegal for public officials to spread misinformation about election results within the state.​

​

The Senate State Government and Elections Committee held a public hearing Friday morning on Senate Bill 5843, which is supported by Gov. Jay Inslee.​

​

​

SB 5843, introduced by Sen. David Frockt, D-Seattle, would make it a gross misdemeanor for public officials and candidates to knowingly spread misinformation about election results in the state. It would be punishable by up to 364 days in jail.​

​

”This is not just our recent past, it is our future if we do not act," Gov. Jay Inslee told Senators during the online hearing Friday morning.​

​

”We cannot afford and we should not have to endure another insurrection like Jan. 6, 2021," said Inslee. "We know what powered, what fueled, what precipitated that insurrection. It was these lies that politicians must be held accountable for.”​

​

>> Download KING 5's Roku and Amazon Fire apps to watch live newscasts and video on demand​

​

A number of people testified against the bill raising concerns about preserving free speech.​

​

”No one should fear voicing an opinion about an election or challenging the status of an election out of fear of misdemeanor, jail time or a fine," said Laurie Buhler, a resident of Wenatchee.​

​

Paul Guppy, with the Washington Policy Center, told senators the bill would not increase confidence in elections.​

​

"It actually creates more suspicion when people are not allowed to debate the outcome of elections honestly," said Guppy.​

Inslee testifies in support of bill that makes spreading election result misinformation illegal

 

[meaner gene]

When I first heard about this bill I thought that it would be nice if there were consequences for intentionally lying about specific occurrences for the purpose of furthering some agenda But when I again heard about it on the news tonight, it caused a little unease.

The law, if passed, is restricted to only public officials so no private citizens, and it would appear to be tied to their official duties.

You must remember, you can't criminalize lies, no matter how harmful. When the Supreme Court (Antonin Scalia) struck down the "defense of honor" law, he said that people were allowed to play soldier, and even adorn themselves with a phony medal of honor, and the government must tolerate it.

As you said, this would be about government workers, doing their government jobs, spreading lies using their government titles. Which is already a fireable offense. This is just adding criminality on top.

 

[Baron Von Murderpaws]

They can make all the laws they want. It ain't gonna happen.
Besides, they won't be able to decide what IS "misinformation" and what is not, as things literally change on a daily basis......as we've all seen with the handling of COVID information.
Whats the punishment going to be, a slap on the hand? Most of these politicians do as they please and get away with it. Look at the DementiacRats. They have yet to be cited, removed from office, charged, and imprisoned for their crimes against this country and it's people.

 

[Meister]

Who gets to decide what is misinformation, and what isn't misinformation?

We've found it very confusing when we leave it up to social media platforms to make those decisions.

 

[BackAgain]

Toffenut and Meister nailed it. Even meager seems to grasp that such a law is problematic as a violation of the free speech clause.

I believe that their collective responses leave this thread dead in the water.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What do you call the sort of people who want to criminalize speech?


Oh, yeah, that's right -- totalitarians, Stalinists, and fascists.

How ANYBODY could entertain such a subversive notion for even a nanosecond is beyond me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Who gets to decide what is misinformation, and what isn't misinformation?

We've found it very confusing when we leave it up to social media platforms to make those decisions.

Whether elected officials doing what amounts to censoring, or non-elected.....it is the same ideology.

Anne Applebaum, who observes about Soviet-era suppression: “Actual censors were not always needed. Instead, a form of pervasive peer pressure convinced writers, journalists and everyone else to toe the party line; if they did not, they knew they risked being ejected from their jobs and shunned by their friends.”

 

[sartre play]

Wouldn't it be nice if people did not feel the need to defend the right to tell lies by political party's.
And We all felt that lies are not in our own best interest. The ends do not justify the lies/

 

[Oddball]

When I first heard about this bill I thought that it would be nice if there were consequences for intentionally lying about specific occurrences for the purpose of furthering some agenda But when I again heard about it on the news tonight, it caused a little unease.

The law, if passed, is restricted to only public officials so no private citizens, and it would appear to be tied to their official duties.

I'd love to hear arguments both for and against. Please remember this is the clean debate zone, thank you.


Inslee testifies in support of bill that makes spreading election result misinformation illegal

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The lunatic left is now officially against the 1st Amendment in its entirety.

 

[Leo123]

Whether elected officials doing what amounts to censoring, or non-elected.....it is the same ideology.

Anne Applebaum, who observes about Soviet-era suppression: “Actual censors were not always needed. Instead, a form of pervasive peer pressure convinced writers, journalists and everyone else to toe the party line; if they did not, they knew they risked being ejected from their jobs and shunned by their friends.”

Sounds eerily familiar.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sounds eerily familiar.

And it is evident and obvious their allies in Big Tech are.

 

[candycorn]

When I first heard about this bill I thought that it would be nice if there were consequences for intentionally lying about specific occurrences for the purpose of furthering some agenda But when I again heard about it on the news tonight, it caused a little unease.

The law, if passed, is restricted to only public officials so no private citizens, and it would appear to be tied to their official duties.

I'd love to hear arguments both for and against. Please remember this is the clean debate zone, thank you.


Inslee testifies in support of bill that makes spreading election result misinformation illegal

Its a band-aid on a decapitation.

An informed citizenry is what is needed to combat disinformation. Look at Covid, about 64% have gotten fully vaccinated:

How are the COVID-19 vaccine and booster campaigns going in your state?

The U.S. is striving to vaccinate as many people as possible against COVID-19 — and keep them up-to-date with boosters. But some states are lagging behind. See how yours is faring.

www.npr.org

State breakdown:

If you were to superimpose a map of the illiteracy rates you'd see the same states to the left high on the list of illiterate adults. NY and California would be high on the list too but one has to remember that those states are not homogeneous and have massive immigrant/ESL populations.

Literacy Data

A collection of resources on literacy statistics, adult literacy research, K-12 literacy data resources app, and other relevant data.

wisconsinliteracy.org

That is why the covid numbers are so high while literacy rates are red-state-ish.

So combating mis/dis information would be great. But the hard work is to have a smarter citizenry who understands when they are being taken for a ride by people who don't have their best interest at heart. When you monetize dis/mis information, it isn't going to go away. Unfortunately, there are those out there who seek only to enrich themselves at the expense of the gullible.

 

[jc456]

Tell the pollsters they’re out of a job

 

[jc456]

When I first heard about this bill I thought that it would be nice if there were consequences for intentionally lying about specific occurrences for the purpose of furthering some agenda But when I again heard about it on the news tonight, it caused a little unease.

The law, if passed, is restricted to only public officials so no private citizens, and it would appear to be tied to their official duties.

I'd love to hear arguments both for and against. Please remember this is the clean debate zone, thank you.


Inslee testifies in support of bill that makes spreading election result misinformation illegal

Free speech hate

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Free speech hate

Freedom of Speech as protected by the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not cover all speech:

Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?​

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:​

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

​

Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.​

---

Category: Freedom of Speech
​

Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment? | Freedom Forum Institute​

 

[Weatherman2020]

When I first heard about this bill I thought that it would be nice if there were consequences for intentionally lying about specific occurrences for the purpose of furthering some agenda But when I again heard about it on the news tonight, it caused a little unease.

The law, if passed, is restricted to only public officials so no private citizens, and it would appear to be tied to their official duties.

I'd love to hear arguments both for and against. Please remember this is the clean debate zone, thank you.


Inslee testifies in support of bill that makes spreading election result misinformation illegal

And the ones determine what’s true are those in power. Gee golly willikers isn’t that convenient.
Censorship by the Left is a longstanding tactic.

 

[martybegan]

You must remember, you can't criminalize lies, no matter how harmful. When the Supreme Court (Antonin Scalia) struck down the "defense of honor" law, he said that people were allowed to play soldier, and even adorn themselves with a phony medal of honor, and the government must tolerate it.

As you said, this would be about government workers, doing their government jobs, spreading lies using their government titles. Which is already a fireable offense. This is just adding criminality on top.

The only exception to the "stolen valor" concept is if the person tries to profit from said lies. Then it becomes fraud, which is actionable.

Being in public service doesn't remove your 1st amendment rights. You can't criminalize lies unless said lies are under oath, and can be proven to be lies, not just differences in opinion.