Why can't we have laws against lying?

[Cleita]

I was listening to this clown from the Cato Institute on Thom Hartmann today on access to health care offering disinformation and already discredited "facts" about national health care in other countries. One of the lies was about people not getting needed surgeries or other care in time to save them from cancer until it was too late. He then offered up Kaiser Permanente as a non-profit solution to hospitals. I nearly fell off my chair with that one. As someone who had to endure Kaiser Permanente for ten years as the only health care access available to me, I can assure you that the quickest appointment I could get for anything was three months down the line. I had to wait a year for a colonoscopy because of bleeding. If it had been cancerous, it probably would have been too late to do much with that kind of wait, yet this clown is offering this as a solution for access to health care for everyone. He didn't say a word about the long waits like he was so happy to offer about health care in England and Canada, which turns out not to be true today in those countries. It may have been so decades ago as these countries were getting their health care bureaucracy in place and operating efficiently, but not today.

I'm sick and tired of these people from think tanks like this, the Heritage Foundation, The Carlyle Group, the American Enterprise Institute ad nauseum offering up lies, disinformation and selective information as credible studies into the problems we are facing today. I want laws passed that penalize them harshly for deliberately offering up skewed studies, propaganda and outright lies as credible information and facts that people not familiar with their biases could take as factual.

While I'm at it, I want our media held to the same standards too. Any news outlet found out to be deliberately telling lies, half truths, incomplete truths and propaganda should be severely fined, even made to stop reporting until they clean up their operation, until they are sure that what they are reporting is truthful and factual.

Hell, I want this from my educators and my politicians too! I want laws against lying to the public if you are presenting yourself as an institution whose job it is to keep the public informed.

[nxylas]

1. We wouldn't need laws against lying if journalists did their job

If lying was illegal, virtually the whole population would be in jail. The answer is not a law against it, but an informed FREE press, free of corporate as well as government interference. I don't buy the RW line that "it's only censorship if the government does it".

[silverweb]

7. Legislation would help.

In particular, legislation guaranteeing "an informed FREE press, free of corporate as well as government interference," with stiff penalties for spreading lies and disinfomation.

[Cleita]

30. If we could do that, it would make a huge difference. n/t

[Odious justice]

40. Legislation would hurt. It would hurt ths site, this country, and it's constitution.

President Bush eats poop.

Oh no, I lied. On DU. Uh-oh. Shit, there's legislation against that now. It appears the site administrators didn't get to take this down in time. Now the whole site is subject to fines and criminal prosecution.

Since DU is an LLC and accepts advertisements- using google no less- it is clearly corporate media. Damn those broadly written laws.

Oh well. Freedom of speech was nice. But living in a world where a semi-elected group of our peers gets to decide on what's true and what isn't is far superior. It's a shame that Michael Moore is doing life in Kansas. I guess he should have known better then to travel to those darned red states.

[Cleita]

46. It wouldn't apply to the general public, who have no authority but every

right to say what they want to say. It just wouldn't apply to this website except maybe the news part of it and everyone works to get that part right. It just wouldn't apply to the average person. What I want is people who get up in public and make statements under the guise of their authority that aren't true. Every time Bush gets up and speaks as the POTUS and starts babbling about whatever he babbles about, I want him to be held to standards and to be able to back up his statements. Bush has made a farce of the office of President. We used to have to rely on getting the truth when the President spoke about taking us to war or elsewhere because we had to trust that he had information that we don't have. Bush has made a travesty of this trust and all his lying sycophants behind him. These are the people I want laws for to be made accountable.

The whole news media has made a farce of their position, which used to be to keep the American public informed. If they had been kept to standards that prevented lies and fabrications, I think we would have had a different world today. These are the people that need to be made honest, not a bunch of people on a message board or at a bar or around the water cooler spouting off about what they think.

[Odious justice]

53. If you can't trust the media, and you can't trust the public, and you can't trust the government....

why the hell are you going to trust a law that is promoted in the media, supported by the people, and enacted and enforced by the government?

People lie. The best thing to do is to point it out. Truth, unfortunately, is subjective all too often. You can manipulate it with experience, prejudice, and even facts. As Mark Twain said: There are three levels of untruth: Lies, Damned lies, and statistics."

We have laws that cover libel and slander. These are the tools you need. If you're going to get out of sorts because the heritage foundation and it's ilk are publishing articles-fight back. Debate. Post here, or at Media Matters. The primary function of DU, for me, is to get news and information, or to see other sides to the story. I don't want my government deciding on what news is true or false.

[Cleita]

65. I disagree. I think if any news outlet had to adhere to the principles set

out in Journalism 101, everyone could be comfortable within those parameters unless the purpose of their periodical was to spread lies and propaganda. That would pretty much shut down those newspapers and journals. But would they be a loss? I mean would you really miss them?

[Odious justice]

95. Yes.

This is a great thread. A lot of posters have pointed out the fallacy in allowing one side to control the "truth" in our society. Today's lies and propaganda are often tomorrow's truths. How many politicians have accused the press of telling lies prior to a story turning out to be true? Recall yellow cake and the whole Plame ordeal. On the other side, look at a "libral journalist", such as Jason Leopold. Where would he fit into your scheme of things?

If a journalist outright fabricates facts they should be fired or outed. If they libel or slander someone they should face the penalty. But the whole idea of the "press" was to create an instrument that would critique government and spread people's thoughts and opinions. By letting one body be the arbitror of truth and controlling speech through it you open the door to " a brave new world" big brother society. IMO.

Agree to disagree otherwise.

[Cleita]

97. "If a journalist outright fabricates facts they should be fired or outed.

If they libel or slander someone they should face the penalty."

Exactly, but you see we don't have laws to cover this. If we did, they wouldn't be doing what they do.

[Odious justice]

110. Think about that last statement.

When a journalist lies to the public he or she risks his career and reputation in doing so.

Jeff Gannon and Jason Leopold. Jason Blair.

They're all doing great now, eh?

What are "laws" going to do? We already have laws. That's my whole point. Almost everything you're referring to is subjective at best. If a reporter says that "Obama killed a baby in Detroit" that would be an excellent example of a lie/slander or libel. If the same reporter says that "Obama is smug and would be a lousy president because he has a Muslim background" that would be an opinion. Not a lie. It is biased, untrue, hateful, and trite. But, it is allowed under our system. News is made for consumers. We can choose which news we want to listen to. We have to act as our own filter. It's not the governments role or job or duty.

Live free or die baby.

[Cleita]

119. Exactly and he must state that his opinion is just that an opinion. Obama could

be smug, but that's subjective and we really don't know. The Muslim background part is a RW lie though. Obama lived in a Muslim country at one time. He was not a Muslim and that is a lie and any reporter who says it should be fined for lies. When you get down to it in a real democracy we are the government and we have a right to have the government we want.

[Odious justice]

153. We all have a muslim background at some point.

But I'm with you on creating our own government. However, it has to be wihin the frame of the constitution. Which can be amended. A law against the press-as you suggest- would require a substantial change.

Peace, have a good night.

[Marrah_G]

172. Umm no we don't

Islam is a relatively new religion.

[Odious justice]

206. It wouldn't be hard to trace one realative to a muslim.

Just saying. It's an explosive non explosive statement.

[Fla_Democrat]

161. If

If there's legislation, with stiff penalties for spreading lies and disinformation... isn't that the very definition of government interference?

Who would determine what would be a lie, or misinformation? A court? A 3 judge panel? A 'bipartisan' house committee? :shrug:

[Cleita]

180. If you have a business license who determines when you are in violation of

it? Usually the DA. Let's say you run a restaurant and are cited by the health department for violations. You are then given a chance to clean the place up. If you don't, let's say after a number of violations, the DA then has a right to close your establishment for being in violation of the law. Now they even put ratings on the restaurants like A, B and C., A being the highest rating for cleanliness. Those owners with lower ratings will not be patronized as much as the A rated restaurants. Incidentally, our governor of California was often cited by the health department in some of the restaurants he owned. How do I know? Because they publish the list in the local newspaper every month.

I believe this could work the same way. Most violators will clean up their act after one or two violations. I believe most people would do the same in order to not be shut down or discredited. Imagine getting news that you know has been fact checked and held to high journalistic standards. Wouldn't that be heaven? You know we used to have that at one time before the seventies.

[silverweb]

197. No, that's NOT the definition of interference.

The definition of government interference is Pentagon or White House representatives/talking points being disseminated as "news."

I'm talking about a protocol and penalties for knowingly spreading lies and disinformation as news or truth.

Once the truth is determined, by whatever means -- REAL investigative journalists being on the front lines -- the mandate should be to spread the truth at least as widely and aggressively as the lies were spread.

You know how retractions and corrections are buried at the bottom of page 15 in newspapers, and radio/TV stations might or might not correct disinformation once it's exposed... or people like Ailes say, "WE will determine what the news is" (quoted from memory, may not be exact).

The protocol in such cases might require much more prominent and sustained public corrections of information determined to be false, and fines/penalties if that protocol is not followed.

That's not government "interference." What we've been enduring for the past 8+ years is a combination of government/corporate interference and propaganda.

[Cleita]

202. Thank you for articulating this so well.

It's what is happening and we've got to stop the train wreck before it destroys every thing else that's left in its path.

[silverweb]

209. :)

I'm pretty sick of people who equate "freedom" with "anarchy."

A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is duty bound to ensure that its people are not lied to and manipulated by those who would deceive and misuse them.

Our government is currently very close to being a full corporatocracy, and it's high time that We the People reclaimed it.

[aspergris]

176. lol

you have no concept of how freedom and free press works. you want to give GOVERNMENT the power to determine truth!!!!

lol

[Cleita]

181. We are the government supposedly and we really need

to return to that standard as a true democracy. The government as it is today in the hands of the neo-cons is determining the truth because they have propagandized our news sources who are no better than Pravda was under the Soviet Union. Having laws and standards about lying is no different that having laws to regulate other businesses like inspecting the food you eat for quality standards. Should we just let the markets sell us donkey meat and tell us it's beef, or cat meat and have them label it as chicken? I think you would agree that this is unacceptable and so is presenting lies as truth.

[aspergris]

184. the response to bad speech

is good speech.

not the govt. telling us what we can and can't hear by punishing those who speak truths inconsistent with THE OFFICIAL GOVT. truth.

i can't believe people can be so myopic and authoritarian that they would cede this power to govt.

sorry, i will make MY own decisions about what is and isn't truth, and I'm glad i live in a country that respects the right of free citizens to seek out diverse info sources and doesn't criminalize opinions that are inconsistent with the Official Word(tm)

it's no coincidence that the official soviet propaganda organ (newspaper) was called Pravda which is russian for "truth"

you can cede your authority to your govt. overlords and patronize the citizenry by claiming they need GOVERNMENT to protect them from bad ideas.

i will stand behind the people and stand for freedom

period.

[Cleita]

188. Like I said, let Sean/Rush/Billo rant all they like.

I want a disclaimer stating what's true in what they are saying and what is conjecture, spin, and fiction. They don't need to do it themselves, but their news outlet needs to put the disclaimers up there when they are finished. Truth in labeling.

[aspergris]

191. again

you miss the point. who determines "what is true" and what is "spin"?

here's a hint. what might be truth, and what might be spin for a leftie is quite different than how a rightwinger would view it. ditto for an anarchist, a libertarian, etc.

you simply want to cede freedom. you HAVE to cede freedom to whomever you want ot have the authority to lablel what is "true speech" and what isn't.

keep in mind. could bugliosi publish his book if official govt. arbiters could say his claim that bush is guilty of murder isn't truth?

the answer is no.

i want freedom, and i accept the cost of freedom

cowards like you want govt. to hold their hand and spoonfeed convenient and palatable truths to them, whatever GOVERNMENT deems is true.

here's a hint. bad speech is countered with good speech.

accept the cost of freedom. it necessarily means that those you disagree with will say things you find grossly untrue.

voltaire said it years ago. i won't repeat it. but i'll reference it

[Cleita]

193. So are you telling me you can't tell the difference?

I can but I research everything. It's people like you who can't tell the difference who need the regulations. Voltaire lived in a different century. The conditions he wrote under and for don't exist today. What's happening to us is even more insidious because of the lies. Don't call me a coward. I have the guts to shine a light on this problem in spite of people like you hinting that I'm unpatriotic. Well go wave your freedom banner now and when all our rights have been taken from us because of the lies and propaganda, I'll see you in the camps and we will see who the coward is then.

[aspergris]

195. the justification

of every fascist... "its different now". "we need to protect you" "i'm from the government and I'm here to help".

the only thing that has changed in regards to speech is that it is FAR more democratic now with the internet than it was in voltaire's time.

youtube, the interenet in general, usenet, blogs, etc. were a pipe dream in voltaire's time.

I will call you a coward. you are willing to cede the most important freedom in order to be 'safe' from bad ideas.

i defend my rights. with the first amendment, with the 2nd, etc.

you want to CEDE your rights because you think it's too "dangerous" to have those evil ideas out there.

any govt. that has the power to determine what views are truth and disseminable has the power to tell you YOUR ideas aren't.

i'll choose freedom.

you can choose simpering, boot-licking authoritarian hell.

[Cleita]

201. To tell the truth, I'm not liking your Libertarian and Republican Hell that

we have right now. There is a way of fixing it if you take your head out of the clouds and breathe some fresh air of reality and workability.

[silverweb]

198. lol

Wrong.

See my post 197 above.

[silverweb]

2. Agreed.

Maybe a Democratic President and Democratic Congress will do something about that... especially if we hound them.

[bryant69]

3. How do you enforce such laws without infringing on freedom of speech?

Also, you are probably aware that Conservatives think that we lie all the time - they'd probably use such laws against those who warn about Global Warming for example.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[fascisthunter]

8. but they would have to PROVE it was a lie

and would lose in the case of Global Warming.

[bryant69]

12. Ah. That's the difference i suppose. Because surely there are no judges or juries

who would fail to see through the lies to the truth.

Bryant

[fascisthunter]

14. you would have to make that assumption in order to dismiss such a thing

the assumption that because there is corruption, no way in hell could any verdict be legit. If that's the case, let's let all criminals out of jail for they may not be criminals after all....

why even bother right?

[bryant69]

17. Totally different, and kind of embarrasing for you.

What are are talking about here is a prohibition against lying - but anything that leads people to become conservative has an element of deceit in it. Were deceits banished from the public square, most if not all conservatism would melt as snow before a summer day.

But of course Conservatives feel exactly the same way about Liberalism - if only we could clear away all the fog, liberalisms lies would vanish, and then liberalism itself would follow.

Since this country is is roughly divided between conservatives and liberals it seems unlikely that this policy could work, except in the most narrowly defined spheres (say laws against Libel or Perjury in the witness stand).

Crimes on the other hand are largely non partisan; they do require judgment calls, but they are non-partisan judgment calls. People aren't directly invested, and therefore can make the right call. In theory anyway.

Bryant

[fascisthunter]

21. you know Bryant... just be honest.. You don't want accountability

I have long since seen you blather conservo-bullshit on DU... you don't want people to stop the lying in the media, because I think you are part of it all.

Go peddle the BS some with someone else. and welcome to ignore.

fascisthunter

[bryant69]

25. Well that's to be expected, although I'm surprised to find that standing up for free speech

is a conservative principle. I thought it was the liberal point of view, but what do I know.

But I will discontinue this discussion if it makes you feel uncomfortable.

Bryant

[Odious justice]

59. It's not progressive or liberal to silence opposition.

I welcome it. Why don't you? Lie's are easy to tear apart.

[Cleita]

92. They aren't easy to tear apart when there is no equal forum to do it.

Now this guy from the Cato Institute did get Thom deconstructing his statements, but he actually really just lied. I wish Thom had just called him a liar. It's so much more honest, but the only reason that occurred was because it was Thom's show. Yet, these people are all over print and airwave all the time with no one calling them on it unless it's a show like Democracy Now or Keith Olbermann's Countdown and they are only two hours out of twenty four hours of crap being offered on the media.

[Odious justice]

104. What are these lies?

Looking at your OP, your whole contention about these lies being spread results from a conservative going on a liberal show and making specific complaints about health care systems. You call him a liar because you have specific complaints about another health care system he recommends.

You're doing the same thing he is. Your extrapolating your bad experience with Kaiser to conclude that it is a poor organization that does more harm then good. He, the CATO dude, is using examples of care in other countries to conclude that national health care will do more harm then good.

Your criticizing him for doing exactly what you're doing. You make it worse by furthering your argument that there should be laws preventing him from speaking(because he lies IYO) and back that up by saying there is no forum to point out these lies...when he made these "lies" on the Thom Hartman show!

Come on.



Here's a snapshot of Kaiser Permanente:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente#Quality_of_care
Quality of care
U.S. News and World Report, in its 2006 annual ranking of US commercial health plans, ranked Kaiser Foundation Health Plans as follows, out of 246 rated plans:<45>

45. Northern California
57. Colorado
65. Georgia
67. Ohio
90. Southern California
94. Hawaii
106. Mid-Atlantic States
121. Northwest
A 2004 Consumer Reports survey of planholders ranked Kaiser Permanente overall as average or better. It showed below average ratings in the Colorado and Mid-Atlantic regions for two measures of quality of care: 'care from doctors', and the 'quality of their primary care physician'. The same survey ranked Kaiser Permanente's Northern California region as the best HMO overall among rated plans.<46>

In the 2007 California Healthcare Quality Report Card, Kaiser Permanente's Northern California and Southern California regions led the rankings, with each scoring six out of eight possible stars.<47> Kaiser's rankings in the 2007 report were lower; Kaiser scored 3 out of 4 possible stars, tied for first place with 3 other firms.<48>

KP's performance has been attributed to three practices: First, KP places a strong emphasis on preventative care, reducing costs later on. Second, its doctors are salaried rather than paid per service, which removes any incentive for doctors to perform unnecessary procedures. Thirdly, KP attempts to minimize the time patients spend in high-cost hospitals by carefully planning their stay and by providing cares in clinics. This practice results in cost savings for KP and greater doctor attention to patients. A comparison to the UK's National Health Service found that patients spend 2-5 times as much time in NHS hospitals as compared to KP hospitals.<49>

[Cleita]

116. Have you ever been a member of Kaiser Permanente?

They brought us the whole HMO model that everyone today accepts as normal. Them ranking up there in competition with other HMO's is not a big recommendation. They are non-profit which is probably why they scored higher. I never had a complaint about my doctors. My complaint was having to field a bureaucracy of under skilled gate keepers before I could see a doctor and huge waits for anything. Sometimes I had to go to the ER and I never got in to see a doctor before a three hour wait and sometimes longer. I once saw a kid with a broken leg and bleeding have to wait for several hours. I was young and it was difficult. Old people just gave up in many instances. I only brought up KP because the Cato Institute guy did think they were a good solution for underclasses, you know, we who aren't able to get gold plated health insurance. Even so it isn't free and goes up every year as you age. He was trying to undermine the British and Canadian system by bringing up decades old stats that are untrue today because the insurance and HMO industries are truly afraid of Medicare for all as the Canadians have. They know it's workable but they would rather lie about it than tell the truth. He knows what he said is untrue and I'm disappointed Thom didn't call him on it, because if it were me I would have called him a liar and given him up to the date stats that I have.

The insurance companies and HMOs are all big funders of these think tanks and of our politicians, so the only way to get the truth out there about this health care situation is to make them tell the truth. This guy went on as if he's an expert on this and has all the facts, but he presented Health industry propaganda instead. Michael Moore bringing us the truth about health care isn't enough. We have to make these experts tell the truth or admit that they are lying.

[Odious justice]

152. Ok, but that doesn't mean he's a liar. He probably never used

such a system. Your experience isn't tantamount to the entirety of the system. It certainly doens't mean he's a liar, and it doesn't mean we should pass legislation because somebody touts the benefits of something you don't like.

[brentspeak]

139. Wikipedia is not a valid source for this topic

Press releases added to an open-edit web page are not exactly what one would call "trustworthy".

[Odious justice]

151. It links to reports that rank health systems from US news.

Which you must have seen.....but i agree. The content of wiki anything isn't valid.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

111. Not the dreaded ignore.

Violate Free Speech, censor people you disagree with, and you labeled him a conservative. That's funny.

David

[fascisthunter]

118. lol.... puhleese... violating controlled media's freedom of speech? Lol...

good one. If I ignore you too, will you call that censorship as well...lol? Give it a rest...

We are talking about holding the media accountable for not telling the truth by possibly fining them. Something tells me you don't want a media held accountable to a higher standard.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. I hold the media to a higher standard.

I don't listen to any news except NPR news. Sometimes I have to change for a breaking local story, only because NPR here won't break for local stories. Those fines didn't work out to well for the FCC in regards to the CBS Superbowl broadcast. The lawyers would just stack the list of witnesses with experts of equal qualifications that believe the exact opposite things and you'd never get a fair jury. It's just a non workable solution. Feel free to try and get it passed though, that's your right.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. In regards to the ignore.

Just hard for me to respect people who stick their fingers in their ears and scream I can't hear you. Never seemed like a mature position to me, but to each their own.

David

[arendt]

37. This is the old canard about "balanced" vs objective". Its still bunk.

> Since this country is is roughly divided between conservatives and liberals it seems unlikely that this policy could work,

You imply that the FACTS are equally divided. But as Stephen Colbert says: "Reality has a liberal bias." Half the country thinks the earth was made 6,000 years ago. That doesn't make it true.

Your objection to being able to submit concrete evidence of lying is the most UN-conservative position I have ever heard of. One of the Ten Commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness". Are you saying that repealing Habeus Corpus doesn't go far enough? That we have to repeal the Ten Commandments as well?

arendt

[bryant69]

44. That's an intereseting response

But a few points

1. I am not proposing repealing any law or commandment; you and others here are proposing a new law or regulation, outlawing deceit on the public airwaves.

2. I am opposed to the abandonment of Habeaus Corpus; I don't know why you would think I would be in favor of it.

3. Determining facts is a trickier business than you and the other pollyannas in this discussion seem to think. Any law is going to have to be enforced by a justice system and our current justice system largely revolves around the jury system. Which means that there's a good chance that on any jury you could have 6 people who think the earth was made 6,000 years ago. Unless you create special tribunals made up of specially knowledgeable people, I don't see how you get around it.

4. Creating special tribunals of specially knowledgeable people to punish liars has some unfortunate precedents.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[arendt]

51. Gee, if its that impossible, then how do any trials about FACTS get done at all?

:sarcasm:I mean, if there is a contract dispute about sub-standard material or failure to live up to the terms of the contract, and the jury is full of braindead assholes, how does anyone ever win on the facts? I mean, according to you, our whole legal system is at the mercy of the illiterate. The corporations must be screaming bloody murder.:sarcasm: OFF.

But, in the real world, lawyers have methods - challenges for bias, pre-emptatory challenges. (And corporations have methods too - courts packed full of Federalist Society judges to overturn the rulings of juries.)

I don't need a special tribunal, as you breathlessly suggest. I don't need new laws. I just need lawyers to do the same job they have done for centuries - discover the facts and apply the law. In this case, the law that broadcasters are given rights to the airwaves to serve the public. Lying does not serve the public. But, it does serve the GOP, who have appointed the majority of the FCC - which refuses to act on lying.

arendt

[bryant69]

62. Ah - I was unfamiliar with the history of the FCC apparently

Tell me how they worked to shut down lying in previous generation? Or could you point me to a book that details how the FCC has shut down liars?

Or are you talking about a new application of the law?

Let me ask another question - if your application of the law were applied right now - which conservative commentators would be allowed to continue on the air?

And finally as mentioned above, the theory behind the jury system, as I understand it, is that the juries are disinterested parties - they are not directly involved in the cases they hear, and so are able to be impartial. When you come to the question of truth in political discourse, nobody is disinterested. To take an example - if you believe that the government found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, you are probably still capable of hearing a case involving building contracts; but if you are asked to judge whether or not a conservative commentator is telling the truth or not, well you might be compromised. You are personally involved.

Bryant

[arendt]

68. We didn't have blatant lying in previous generations. No need to shut down what didn't exist.

We used to have a journalistic style of detachment and a Fairness Doctrine for editorialising. With corporations deciding that News is just Infotainment, and with Reagan killing the FD, the door to massive lying was opened; and there hasn't been a moment since when honest people have had a chance to stop it. Just exactly whom are you defending with your pettifogery?

I would let anyone who doesn't tell outright factual lies to stay on the air. I am sickened by this "the guy came in third from last in a three man race" kind of rhetoric that has become SOP; but its not illegal, just unethical.

>> if you are asked to judge whether or not a conservative commentator is telling the truth or not, well you might be compromised. You are personally involved.

Oh, please. There has to be some kind of legal precedent for "crying wolf" or "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" which applies to the kind of public stampede created by coordinated lying. To say that because someone is a public figure, he can never be sued for lying is crap. The deep-pockets right sued Oprah Winfrey for speaking against beef. The only reason she won is because her pockets were just as deep.

Your whole shtick here smells a lot like "tort reform" - peeling away the only rights people have - legal rights.

arendt

[bryant69]

72. I do enjoy being accused of being dishonest constantly

If you are planning on suing somebody for lying, why don't you do it? Or set up a movement to raise the money to do so.

I also find it mordantly amusing that you find this the first time we've had this problem. Maybe you should look up Father Coughlin; it might open your eyes. Or take a look at how Southern Newspapers performed their duties in the run up to the civil war. of afterwards for that matter.

At any rate if my fellows at DU do not value freedom of speech, well, I must respectfully disagree.

Bryant

[arendt]

78. You are in favor of free speech, but you "do (?n't?) enjoy being accused of being dishonest"

If its a typo, you're a hypocrite. If its not, then, at least you are OK with my free speech accusations.

Have it either way. LOL!

arendt

[bryant69]

80. Huh? OK - perhaps I should note that at this point I don't use the sarcasm tag.

I generally assume people reading my posts are either smart enough to tell when I'm being sarcastic or so fucking stupid that I don't care whether they know whether I'm being sarcastic or not.

Bryant

[arendt]

94. I said nothing about sarcsam. I did say something about hypocrisy. n/t

[bryant69]

163. OK - please unpack that for me -

How am I being hypocritical?

Bryant

[arendt]

165. If I am correctly unpacking YOUR comment about not using the sarcasm tag, then...

you said:

> I DO enjoy being accused of being dishonest constantly

and you MEANT it.

In which case, you are perfectly OK with my accusations. And, you are consistent in your defense of free speech. Congratulations, you are a man of principle.

----

OTOH, if you meant:

> I DON'T enjoy being accused of being dishonest constantly

Then you would be a hypocrite, because you are saying you are all for free speech until it has a negative impact on you.

----

If that isn't clear, please let me know.

arendt

[bryant69]

166. Ah - I see

Very idiotic.

"So Bryant you support Freedom of Speech?"

"Yes, I think you should be allowed to say anything you want."

"OK. Watch me go over and call that black person a ******"

"Don't do that!"

"Why not?"

"That's a stupid use of your freedom of speech."

"So you don't support freedom of speech?"

"I support it - you have the right to go over call that black person that word. But don't do it."

"Hypocrite."

"What?"

"You heard me. If you supported freedom of speech you would cheer on my use of my freedom of speech no matter what."

Suffice it to say I'm opposed to governmental restraint of freedom of speech, such as you and others are proposing. I am of course in favor of you governing your own tongue and restraining from being idiotic or nasty.

Bryant

[arendt]

167. Strawman. Talk about this thread, not some made up BS scenario.

I made some observations about what you said in this thread. You construed them to be accusations. That is your privilege.

But, when I said that your whining about my misconstruing your words (in the same manner that the media misconstrues the Democrats LEGITMATE point of view) was hypocrisy, you pull out your over-the-top strawman and go on the attack with yet another distortion.

Sorry, not buying it. You waded into this thread to defend the media's right to lie and distort. When you don't like what you get back, you pull a complete 180 and accuse me of being for "freedom of speech no matter what". From one extreme to the other - a serial extremist.

You are spinning so fast that you are making me dizzy.

You are a total pettifogger, and I am not wasting any more time with you.

arendt

[bryant69]

168. Interesting that all of these pro censorship people can't really handle debate

Amusing. And telling I suppose.

At any rate you shouldn't construe my opposition to censorship with agreement with the the distortions of liberalism practiced by the media and the right wing commentators. I've been writing about those lies at my blog since 2002. I'm not in favor of them. I just disagree with this method of dealing with the problem.

Are you going to ignore me like that putz antifaschitz?

Bryant

[arendt]

169. You don't debate, you just move from attack point to attack point, never answering the question...

These are classic propaganda tactics. You are good at it; but I've been here before. I know that I won't get anything back from you but insults and distortions. So, why waste my breath.

I don't need to ignore you, just not get tangled up your line of BS - and maybe rescue others from you, from time to time.

Have fun finding other suckers.

arendt

[bryant69]

171. How heroic. I hope you are successful in rescuing others from me. n/t

[Raskolnik]

73. "We didn't have blatant lying in previous generations."

And with that, you have absolutely and irretrievably lost your credibility.

[arendt]

76. Its too fine a point for you. Of course we had lying. Just not the "any moron knows it" lying we now

have. They have pushed lying to the point where it isn't even possible to put the truth on the table.

arendt

[Raskolnik]

84. Are you the least bit familiar with the history of the U.S.? There have been lying

sacks of shit posing as journalists at *every* stage of U.S. history. There were dozens (if not hundreds) of newspapers being printed during the revolution that were filled with outrageous falshoods of all kinds. The battle between Hearst and Pulitzer in the late 19th Century makes our current newspapers look like bastions of rational thought by comparison, and Father Caughlin said things that Rush Limbaugh would be be hesitant to express publicly.

If you truly think that this is the first time in history that the truth has suffered, you just aren't interested in reality.

[arendt]

100. This is the first time since FDR gave us a government that supports the middle class that...

the powers that be have shown not the slightest interest in media lies that have led to war and economic hardship.

This is from a Dan Gilmore column in the UK Guardian newspaper:

3. A substantially false story that helps make the case for war by raising fears about enemies abroad attacking the US is released into public debate because of faulty reporting done by ABC News. How that happened and who was responsible is itself a major story of public interest. What is ABC News doing to re-report these events, to figure out what went wrong and to correct the record for the American people who were misled?

Where are the Congressional investigations about these deadly lies - lies that have killed thousand of our soldiers and over a million Iraqis? Lies that have funneled billions of my tax dollars to Halliburton and Blackwater. When I have to go OUTSIDE the U.S. to find out I'm being lied to, things are much worse than before. In the past, there were credible OPPOSITION mass media sources. There were Congressional investigations with teeth.

I certainly agree that in the past, I was fed some very carefully spun disinformation and that blatant witch hunts were run. But, the level of propaganda that we are now being subjected to is unprecedented. I can't listen to a traffic report on the radio without hearing about how "Congress is on vacation during an energy crisis". (That actually happened to me this morning. Fucking fascist, police-blotter news AM station.)

It is a sign of totalitarianism when the smallest detail of life is invaded by the party line.

I repeat; I have never seen the LEVEL and OMNIPRESENCE of the lying that there is today. If you haven't noticed it, then you are one of those cooked frogs.

arendt

[rucky]

179. Make any public statement of an elected official de facto "under oath"?

:shrug:

[Cleita]

194. That would work, but I think I would limit it to only a few and powerful

elected officials like the POTUS and his VP, and maybe the speakers of the houses. Other than that the higher ups would be passing the buck to underling scapegoats.

[meegbear]

4. It's only legal to lie ...

http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm

[Wizard777]

35. SCOTUS might reverse their decission. This could have an effect on editorial mentions.

That's basically a commercial presented as news. This can include Infomercials. This miracle vitamin CURES CANCER. LIVE FOREVER! You sue them for false advertizing and they say, sure we lied! We're a news show and we're allowed to do that. SCOTUS has already ruled that Public Service Announcements (PSA's)are bound by truth in advertizing laws. NORML v. Partnership For A Drug Free America Re: Brain waves PSA.

[spanone]

5. they are paid liars. nothing more.

[begin_within]

6. It's hard to do that without infringing on their First Amendment rights

So far all we have come up with are fraud, harrassment, slander, libel, defamation and discrimination laws, so if you can get them on one of those you can punish them. But for just knowingly make a false statement or a half-truth, well, where do you draw the line between that and freedom of speech? Does freedom of speech mean only if you are speaking the truth? And who is to determine whether it is actually the truth?

[Cleita]

13. How about making a condition.

If a person is speaking with authority, meaning he or his institute are supposed to be experts in this, then he and they should be held accountable for deliberately spreading lies and unproven information. If it's a theory, it should be clearly stated as such, so that no one is misled. I think our educators and politicians should be held to telling the truth if they are dealing with proof and facts. If it's conjecture or theory, it should be clearly stated as such. Maybe they would shut up until they had all the facts in their hands. If someone lied to them like in the weapons of mass destruction lie to go to war with Iraq, the person Bush/Cheney who lied to them would be held liable.

[begin_within]

23. Sure, it's great in theory

But you would have to have very clear legal definitions of terms such as "speaking with authority," "expert," "proven," "unproven," "theory," "fact," "conjecture" and so on, so that you have legal standards to go by. You would have to prove in court that the party violated one or more of those standards. And you would also have to produce the party which was damaged as a result of the lie. I think it would be great if someone who was harmed by Bush/Cheney's lies about the weapons of mass destruction, such as the family of someone killed in Iraq, would file a suit against them, probably claiming fraud or something, and win a massive judgement against them... followed by a class-action suit by all families of those killed or injured or harmed in any way. It would be a hard case to win, but worth the fight.

[Booster]

9. Cause we'd all be in jail.

[Cleita]

18. I'm not talking about day to day socializing.

I'm talking about people who are supposed to be experts deliberately lying to the public. I mean if you go to the doctor you expect him to tell you the truth about your health. If you have a disease and he doesn't tell you and doesn't give you your treatment options, he's guilty of lying or being untruthful to you and would be liable for a malpractice suit. This is what I'm talking about. People who are supposed to be authorities and experts telling lies to the public.

[bdab1973]

71. You'd still be in jail.

Anyone can twist facts and figures around to fit their own agenda. If you want to call that "lying", then go ahead. I personally favor just doing what we do now...calling the liars. It would suck beyond belief if you said what you felt was the truth, and someone could sit there and say "oooh no...look what I found here...some conflicting data....LIAR! Now go to jail!".

[fascisthunter]

112. she's obviously talking about the MSM... and not posters on the internet

You just twisted what she said because you disagree with her point. In fact, you defined your own behavior in your own post.

Since you aren't part of the media, you wouldn't be held accountable by being "sent to jail", and saying so is a bit disingenuous in an attempt to exaggerate.

[fascisthunter]

113. We are all in the Media?

wow....

[DesertFlower]

10. i agree.

i'm tired of hearing the "so called" horror stories about health care in other countries. ask NanceGreggs who has lived in canada for many years if she is unhappy with her health care. i'm sure we have other members who live in countries with universal health care who could tell us how it really is.

[nxylas]

16. I lived in the UK for 35 years

And wingnuts still try to tell me what healthcare is like over there! When I say that it's not true that you have to wait 12 weeks to see a doctor and that British doctors won't refer patients to a specialist (to name but two of the lies that I've been told on internet forums), they always produce a previously unmentioned cousin's neighbor's friend who has told them differently.

[DesertFlower]

26. it takes me 3-4 weeks

to get an appointment with a specialist here and i've good good insurance.

it amazes me how many people have not seen "Sicko". maybe they would change their minds when they realize that having insurance does not protect you from losing your home and going bankrupt.

[fascisthunter]

11. I Agree with You... how to hold them accountable is the question

Something has got to be done...

[Cleita]

15. That's the problem.

We really need to outline what circumstances and venues would be the ones where lying would be considered criminal. I do believe that anyone who presents himself as an expert or spokesperson for an issue that they be held to telling the truth and if they don't have all the facts and proof needed, to clearly state that they are presenting conjecture or theory.

[fascisthunter]

19. I Agree with you....

because at this point, any one with the means can spread misinformation without the people of this country knowing the difference and that is very dangerous.

Just look at the hate crimes committed by those who are brainwashed by right wing propaganda? Are we going to become like Rwanda or are we going to do something about it before it is too late?

Once a person lies, they abuse that Freedom of Speech. Just as one might commit any crime, they step over a line that does not deserve any freedom what so ever and are thrown into jail for it, depending on that crime. I see no reason why we as a Nation cannot implement such a law into our system.

One main problem, will be the wealth behind such media outlets that have gotten away with years of lies and distortions. They will be the first to bitch and moan about Freedom of Speech, as if their right wasn't bought and paid for already....

Can I spout lies on tv 24-7? No, but Rupert Murdoch can because he can afford to do so. This needs to be hammered when talking about Freedom of Speech in the media.

[Raskolnik]

56. Who is the "them" whose speech you think could be restricted?

Anchors on Fox News? Commentators on NPR? Bloggers on HuffPo? Who?

[fascisthunter]

98. do you really need to ask the question

it's pretty obvious we are talking about those in the MSM who lie and distort information.

"Restrict".... no hold accountable for lying, yes.

[Raskolnik]

124. How the hell do you apply a law restricting speech to the "MSM"?

I presume you consider the major networks to be the "MSM," but what else? Is HuffPo the MSM? Is the Limbaugh Letter? What about The Nation? How about press releases from PNAC? How about press releases from PETA? Is Keith Olbermann a member of the MSM? What about MoveOn.org?

This is simply a half-baked idea that violates a large portion of the speech the First Amendment is intended to protect.

[fascisthunter]

143. Fine THEM LIKE THE FCC Already DOES when Someone Swears on TV

is that hard for you to understand? As long as it is proven... pretty simple.

[Fuzz]

20. Damn ten commandments.

[slackmaster]

24. None of the 10 Commandments prohibit lying per se

Bearing false witness is a special case, and we actually do have laws against that.

[Fuzz]

32. I was brought up being told the 8th commandment

was about lying. Protestant, evangelical, speaking in tongues kind of church.

As if that's the only interpretation I know. ;)

[slackmaster]

60. I remember being given the example, in Sunday school, of a German family hiding Jews during WWII

German soldiers knock on your door. You answer. They ask if any Jews are hiding in your house.

Is it a sin to lie?

I don't know any religious person who would say that it is.

[Cleita]

69. We all lie socially and sometimes out of necessity.

I mean we tell our children about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. We lie to our friends not to hurt their feelings. But the kind of lies I'm talking about affect peoples lives, like lying about war and lying about national health care and about environmental issues such as drilling in ANWR. These affect people's lives and when they are done by people in authority it should be regarded as criminal.

[Fuzz]

86. Oh sure. There are always exceptions. That's the nature of

these 'iron clad' rules of god, right? It's just who gets to draw that line isn't it? The Bush administration draws the line publicly by saying it's 'what's good for the country' but when you brush that all aside it's pretty much just what's good for them to keep them out of trouble or cover their tracks or do whatever they want. But the same people want to shove the 10 commandments in the public square to remind us that we must follow them 'or else'.

[slackmaster]

106. The line between bearing false witness and other forms of speech seems pretty clear to me

:shrug:

[Ron Green]

22. There ARE laws against lying -

but they're moral and ethical laws. The Free Market actually has laws that reward lying, 'cause you can make more money by fooling more people (caveat emptor and all that.) The State, sitting in the middle of this, makes laws against lying only when that lying is proven to do harm to someone.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Alas, the laws would have to made by politicians. Not exactly the standards of honesty.

And, they would automatically make themselves criminals...which they usually are anyway.

[Cleita]

29. You gave me an idea.

We can get laws by referendum here in California. You can get something on the ballot if you get enough signatures for people to vote on. No politicians needed. I think I will look into it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Glad to be of service. Hope it works.

But, knowing politicians, they'd quickly pass laws to protect themselves.

I used to be a Californian. Born and (mostly) raised there. Finally, bailed in 1981 to beat the heat and population (L.A.) and moved to the beautiful Pacific Northwest. Still miss the Eucalyptus trees and mockingbirds. But, that's about it.

[Cleita]

50. Well, I agree about the Northwest.

I used to live in North Idaho and was forced to move back to California when my husband went on dialysis to be near family. I can't go back but really miss the forests and lakes.

[SeattleGirl]

28. Cleita, I can't tell you how many times that same thought has crossed

my mind!

The insanity we are surrounded by these days, the countless lies, anger me to no end!

[Cleita]

31. It's what brings down empires and once great countries.

It's bringing down ours. :hi:

[SeattleGirl]

33. Yes, it is.

And the liars don't care.

:hi:

[Marrah_G]

34. I know on it's face it sounds like a great idea

But you have to think of the snowball effect.

Would churches be immune? Would anyone mentioning God need to prove he exists? Who would the lying laws apply to? What would be the penalty for lying? How much would it cost us to prosecute every alleged lie? Not all lies are easily proven. Sometimes opinion is stated like a fact.

Laws are not the answer to everything and often make more of a mess.

[bryant69]

36. Watch out - bringing common sense into this discussion might get you yelled at. n/t

[fascisthunter]

38. um.... we are talking about the MSM media here

lying about being professional journalists and saying they are fair and balanced news. This isn't about religion or just lying in general.

[bryant69]

41. Not to contradict you

But you are also talking about guests on programs - if a person is brought in as an expert and allowed to speak, they could also be subject to these truth laws.

Am I ignore yet?

Bryant

[Marrah_G]

47. Where is the line drawn then? The government should not be in the habit of regulating news

The government should not have any hand in the news period.

This is one of those things where its up to the people to say "I won't watch you anymore because you lie".

[Cleita]

58. Why should this one business not have some regulation?

Your doctors, dentists and teachers have laws they must follow for your protection. Why does the news get a pass? Now I'm not talking about the press in general, just the news. It's really very narrow in scope and simply states they must report the whole truth with the facts to back up their reporting. If they don't want to do that they should qualify that what they are saying is a theory, mythology with no proof, fiction or whatever it is. But when they make a statement as if it were fact and it is a lie or disinformation, they need to be held accountable that it is the truth. Because they have been given this pass in accountability we have a single political party that is controlling the content of the news and turning it into fiction but not stating it as such.

[Marrah_G]

79. Because it is the press. Because the found fathers realized how important this is

What you are proposing is a very slippery slope to government run news. What you are proposing is incredibly dangerous. You are looking at it in only one light. Now look at it from the point of view where it would be abused. Where it would be used as a weapon. Because THAT is where it would end up.

Our constitution guarantees a press free from any interference. Why would anyone publish anything if there was the slightest chance they were wrong and could be breaking the law? Who would ever take that chance? Who would ever stand up to government in any form? Who would report all those things that we discuss here about Bush/Cheney and Company? No one. No one would be taking that chance.

Soon bloggers will be listed as the press and then discussion would be further shut off.

YES, the press should be honest. But passing laws over what they can publish is a dangerous endeavor indeed.

[Cleita]

85. Wake up and smell the newsprint. We already have government run news

and a corporate run government that administers it. What I'm suggesting is to make them honest and not a propaganda outlet for those same corporations, who incidentally, today are our government if you haven't noticed.

[Marrah_G]

89. No- you think that is what you are proposing- But it is the opposite

You would shut down any freedom of press that we have. Smaller papers could be shut down by constant litigation. You never would have heard about any of the crimes of the Bush Administration.

What you propose is destructive and dangerous to our Democracy.

[Cleita]

105. The smaller presses would have to keep to the truth and they wouldn't

be shut down. However, the real problem is that news outlets shouldn't be owned by mega corporations. We used to have anti-trust laws that prevented a few corporations from owning everything. However, you never read about it when they did away with those laws because the news corporation already were being selective about what they reported as news and didn't report while the corporatocracy went in for the kill. Now all we have left is the will and the guts to make them tell the truth.

[Marrah_G]

109. And you don't think they would be tied up in baseless litigation until bankrupted?

No one would investigate or report on anything because they would be afraid to be wrong or have to pay a lawyer to prove they are right.

[Cleita]

157. Every small business runs that risk.

I know. My husband had a restaurant and later a bookstore. We were liable for perceived wrongs and we were sued at times because that is what the price of business is. We had insurance which absorbed much of the liability but frankly we wrote that liability into the bottom line. It's not that hard to understand. I suppose you think that your particular business should get a free ride?

[Marrah_G]

162. My business? My business is incredibly regulated.

You mistake me for someone in the news business.

Your plan is not well thought out and incredibly flawed. Though your intentions are good the result would be the opposite of your intention. It's been explained a number of times by a few different people but you won't stop to listen.

[Cleita]

42. Surely, such a law or laws would have to be more narrowly defined.

But, we really have nothing now. I believe there's a truth in advertising law that covers extreme claims for product advertising, but we really need laws making people who claim to be experts or authorities accountable for what they are pushing as facts. I believe that the separation of church and state provisions in the Constitution would cover churches within their congregations. However, it would surely shut up those Dominionists who are trying to claim Obama is the anti-Christ outside of their pulpits. This is an out and out lie meant to discredit a presidential candidate and they should be made to explain exactly what they mean. Here is where a disclaimer would come in handy. They would have to announce that they have no proof that Obama is the anti-Christ, and that the anti-Christ is mentioned in the scriptures and could be just a metaphor. To say otherwise in a public venue would subject them to fines and other penalties.

[fascisthunter]

43. You Would Think Separation of Church and State

would tell them to stay out of telling folks how to vote... but then again, we are talking about an unethical organization who hides their own hate-filled agenda behind a "god".

[bryant69]

45. I guess you are ignoring me.

Oh well, probably for the best.

Bryant

[Cleita]

48. Yes, but it's up to us to keep them in their place,

something that hasn't happened since the RW took over and invited the churches into politics. It's up to Congress to start enforcing that separation again. Hopefully, if we ever have clean elections again we will get rid of these opportunists who are nothing better than crooks any way.

[Marrah_G]

49. We have nothing now for a reason. Its a very important part of the Constitution.

The founding fathers put it in there for a reason.

If you pass laws regarding the press it will undoubtedly come back to bite your own side in the ass.

[Cleita]

52. So I guess we must accept that we don't have an honest press

because there are no laws to regulate the truthfulness of the content they put out. That sounds like a RW argument to me and laissez faire rationalizations. So it seems the Constitution has given us the Pravda of the Soviet Union, news content dictated by a single political party with little regard to reality or facts.

[Odious justice]

55. What press are you reading?

It's sort of a broad stroke to label every media outlet a tool of RW propaganda. I mean, there are actual RW propaganda outlets and they don't need that sort of competition. If the entire media were in the bag, we wouldn't have fox news or news busters. Look, no one source is going to please you all of the time. It's very easy to identify bias and fact check articles. If you're not into that sort of thing, well, you're just joe consumer and you're either a New York Times guy or a New York Post dude. You can argue that both are "corporate RW propaganda" but that's not gonna make it true. The NYT's guy votes for a democrat and the NYP votes for a republican.

The news is filtered to protect both parties, not one. And frankly, to think that any source of media isn't going to be biased or speak ill of your side is short sighted. If someone lies, call them on it. We do have slander and libel laws.

[Cleita]

61. You know when I go anywhere, the gym, the hospital, the car repair and all

that is playing is Fox News, they are propagandizing the public with lies. When these conservatives as a regular gig get on Thom Hartmann and tell lies, with impunity, and Thom usually corrects them, they still feel that they can do this without consequence. What is bad is that they have all this misinformation on their websites for people to read as if they were facts. That's where I want some truth laws. If the Ayn Rand Institute wants to put up their crazy theories, then fine. I just want them to say that they are nothing more than theories that Rand developed and in fact haven't been shown to be workable in the real world. That's all I want.

[Marrah_G]

75. No- quite the opposite. We ensure that government can't dictate the news

What you are proposing opens us up to the very type of system you are talking about.

[Cleita]

88. We already have that system if you haven't noticed.

I want to pull them back to at least being watchful about blatant lies and disinformation.

[Marrah_G]

90. There would be no news under the legislation you propose

Forget it. You don't get it. And besides, it will never happen as it is blatantly unconstitutional.

[Cleita]

101. We have news?

I get news through LinkTV and the BBC as well as trawling the internet. They haven't been able to shut the internet down yet, but I'm sure they will try. I'm certain newsman Benjamin Franklin would be shocked at what has happened to our news today or lack of it. It certainly wasn't what he and the other founding fathers were thinking of when they formed the concept of freedom of speech.

[Marrah_G]

108. Yes we do have news.

[Cleita]

149. Yes, for those of us who have the luxury of

time and resources to ferret it out, but what most people get is reminiscent of "1984". Sometimes I don't believe what my neighbors say to me in casual conversation and I know they are getting it from the "experts" who are expert at lying. One day when I mentioned that I couldn't believe our government was sanctioning torture, my neighbor an old WWII vet turned around and said that "they have no problem cutting off our soldier's dicks so they should pay for it". BububuwawaWA! You tell me where this came from?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

196. I see what you're saying but I kinda like the idea of churches having to substantiate their beliefs.

[Raskolnik]

54. Because those laws would be (1) unworkable and (2) ridiculously unconstitutional

Are those good enough reasons?

[harun]

64. They work in the UK, is that good enough reason?

[Cleita]

66. They keep Ruppert Murdoch's tabloids in line, don't they?n/t

[Raskolnik]

67. First of all, the UK doesn't have that pesky First Amendment.

Second, the laws in the UK have not prevented the problems the OP was seeking to address. Third, the OP was calling for laws that go far beyond those that exist in the UK.

So no, it's not really a good enough reason.

[Cleita]

96. What laws did the OP call for that go beyond the UK?

Since I'm the OP all I am calling for is honesty. I don't feel people who are authorities should be allowed to lie about those things they are supposed to be expert in. Do you want your doctor to lie to you, or your lawyer? No, you expect honesty. That's what I want from my hard news media, my politicians and any entity that presents themselves as experts who do studies on issues like think tanks. If they can't tell the truth and back it up with facts, then they should present such opinions as theories, fiction, speculation or unproven facts clearly and concisely so that there is no question of doubt that they are not speaking factually but speculatively.

[Raskolnik]

138. Read your own OP.

I want laws passed that penalize them harshly for deliberately offering up skewed studies, propaganda and outright lies as credible information and facts that people not familiar with their biases could take as factual.

While I'm at it, I want our media held to the same standards too. Any news outlet found out to be deliberately telling lies, half truths, incomplete truths and propaganda should be severely fined, even made to stop reporting until they clean up their operation, until they are sure that what they are reporting is truthful and factual.

Hell, I want this from my educators and my politicians too! I want laws against lying to the public if you are presenting yourself as an institution whose job it is to keep the public informed.

There are no laws in the UK even approaching what you are proposing.

[Cleita]

148. Well, in the heat of the moment I was thinking of the most egregious lies

we have been subjected to in the name of terrorism. I still stand on penalizing the perpetrators harshly for what they have done. However, I do get the difference between misdemeanors and felonies.

[ThoughtCriminal]

204. Like the 1990 McDonald's defamation case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law#The_.27McLibel.27_Case

The law is easily abused to squash critisism. How many can afford to defend themselves against lawsuits by multi-billion dollar corporations. The guys with the deepest pockets and most lawyers will ultimately get to decide what a "Lie" is.

[fishwax]

57. because of freedom of speech/press and because of the potential for abuse

If we'd had such a law over the last several years, who would the Bush administration's justice department be more likely to prosecute (or harass) with it?

[bryant69]

63. But if only the truth were allowed to be spoken

Bush would never have had a chance to get elected. Or so the theory goes.

I also hear that belling the cat is a great idea.

Bryant

[Cleita]

70. Belling the cat is a great idea.

Now the little bastard can't sneak up on me or away from me.

[Fire Walk With Me]

74. Because liars are the ones who work the hardest (to protect their right to lie).

[bryant69]

81. Yep - and the Innocent have nothing to fear. n/t

[Cleita]

83. Really?

I think one Reverend Neimoller, who was put in a concentration camp by the Nazis, would disagree with you. He also felt he had nothing to worry about because he didn't fall into the demographic of those who were being sent to the concentration camps.

[Raskolnik]

87. (I believe you are arguing against your own position at this point)

You want to drastically restrict free speech, but assure us that it would only affect the bad guys at Fox et al. That's not now these things work.

[Cleita]

91. Drastically restrict free speech?

Where do you get that? I just want them to tell the truth and if they can't to that then to just say that they are making stuff up. I just want them to be honest or get out of the business of screwing up our lives with their lies. Now that Cato Institute guy should have said that the facts he was presenting were twenty years old and that he wasn't up to date but he would look into it and that Kaiser Permanente has huge waiting times for surgeries so it's not as efficient as other countrie's NHC like in France for instance. How hard is that?

[Raskolnik]

93. Yes. Drastically.

You "want laws passed that penalize them harshly for deliberately offering up skewed studies, propaganda and outright lies as credible information and facts that people not familiar with their biases could take as factual."

That is an incredibly significant restriction on free speech.

[Cleita]

99. If this were a law, the Project For a New American Century would not

have been able to convince a whole political party to make war in the Middle East through a compilation of lies, unfounded ideology and unrealistic goals. If the founders of that think tank had been held to truthfully stating where and how they came to their conclusions, we wouldn't be where we are today. Our whole corporate run government is based on ideological lies cooked up in the demented brains of those many liars. Look at the list of whom were the founders.

[Raskolnik]

107. Oh, now you want to criminalize "unfounded ideology" and "unrealistic goals" as well?

Well, then you've just criminalized all literature published by Lyndon LaRouche, the Bible, my weekend plans, Weight Watchers, and the Quran.

Lack of ambition is not one of your failings.

[fascisthunter]

114. really... they are the Mainstream Media? Stop exagerating

[Raskolnik]

117. Please tell me how I have exaggerated your position.

[fascisthunter]

122. You Deliberately Exaggerated her statement to include:

...literature published by Lyndon LaRouche, the Bible, my weekend plans, Weight Watchers, and the Quran."

Ridiculous and transparent.

[Raskolnik]

128. Please explain how you could possibly restrict the speech of a commentator from the Cato Institute

without also restricting *all* political speech?

(I will concede that I was being flip by including "Weight Watchers" and "my weekend plans" among items based upon "unfounded ideology" and "unrealistic goals"--if you didn't get that the first time around, I apologize)

[fascisthunter]

131. Well, that would be different since a commentator would be Invited

that commentator is not a pundit that works for the mainstream media. So in my opinion, it would be handled as it always has been, by the host of the show calling him or her out for lying.

I thought this was about holding the media and those that work for it to account.

[Raskolnik]

134. That makes no sense. A "commentator" that works for NBC would have his speech

significantly restricted, but the same program could put a member of the Cato Institute into that seat and the speech wouldn't be restricted? I'm not sure you've given this any real thought.

[fascisthunter]

136. buh bye

[Raskolnik]

141. Bye. Have a good evening.

If you actually took some time and learned about the Constitution and the way it works, threads like these would probably progress more smoothly for you.

Take care.

[bryant69]

173. I feel kind of sorry for you

But yeah that's exactly my point. You can craft these laws anyway you like but you can't guarentee the mechanisms you create to stop lies won't be used to stop truths.

Bryant

[Irreverend IX]

77. This is one of the worst policy ideas I've ever heard.

Even worse than your idea to license journalists. Legally determining the truth or untruth of a statement is very tricky, and there are good reasons that "lies" are only legally actionable in a few narrowly-defined cases. If you make a law against lying in the media, how will you determine what's a lie? How can you legally determine that "Saddam had WMDs" is a lie and "Karl Rove probably played a part in outing Valerie Plame" is true? The only way to do it would be to bring experts on the subject matter to testify in court, as is done in medical malpractice cases, and you can find "experts" to promote any point of view.

There are plenty of people with long lists of impressive-looking credentials who will look a judge in the eye and say that global warming is a myth and homosexuality is a mental disorder. The quantity and quality of "experts" who can be brought in to argue a legal case are determined by how much money someone is able to pay them. So what you're doing is creating a situation where anyone with enough cash can sic the legal system on a media outlet they don't like for the crime of "lying." I bet the neocons would love that. If Keith Olbermann said Bush invaded Iraq with faulty intelligence and gave sweetheart deals to Halliburton, they could scramble a team of "experts" who will testify that he's lying and get MSNBC slapped with a fine.

The law of unintended consequences applies to legislation more than anything.

[Cleita]

82. Get over it.

Something has to be done. Reaganomics has already proved that deregulating everything is causing this country to fall apart. The same applies to those who are supposed to be telling us the truth because they are the experts, but instead are filling us with lies and disinformation. Someone has got to pick up the gauntlet. I do appreciate everyone venting an opinion though. It helps me fine tune my position.

[fascisthunter]

103. good topic Cleita

it's amazing though that people consider corporate news as part of free speech. There is nothing free about it. They own the very means in which they control the subject matter they twist and distort. A media MONOPOLY actually with a very corporate slanted agenda. There is no freedom of speech in a monopoly of the media.... the irony.

[Raskolnik]

115. It's amazing that people consider gutting the First Amendment as a desirable solution

Yet are unable to provide any argument as to how it would be a workable or consitutional system.

[fascisthunter]

126. Can you or I swear on tv anytime we want? Didn't think so...

Well then, if you consider it gutting the First Amendment you should go after the media for doing that very thing on a daily basis. We already know they control the message in the media and they don't allow me or you to say whatever the "fuck" we want to? Go ahead... ask MSM to allow you to swear on tv.....

Your argument is goofey. The media isn't "free" to begin with and no one other than a hand picked group of talking heads is allowed to voice their opinions or views, never mind being able to express oneself the way they want.

[Raskolnik]

130. Your example is a non sequitur

If you can't figure out on your own why regulating profanity on broadcast tv is constitutional, but strictly regulating the content of all political speech isn't, I'm not sure you have a lot to offer this conversation.

[fascisthunter]

132. lol.... gotcha. buh bye

[Raskolnik]

135. Um, if by "gotcha" you mean "posted nonsense that doesn't have anything to do with the topic"

Then I concede I've been got.

[fascisthunter]

137. yawn

[Raskolnik]

140. At this point it appears you've stopped even pretending you have an argument.

So I'll take my leave unless you have something to offer.

[fascisthunter]

142. Lol.... Get Over Yourself Already

your argument was full of non sequitur, and yet, when I made a point that the media itself was not "free" but controlled you accused me of the very thing you already did to Cleita. Why waste my time with someone who can't have an honest debate and acts like a hypocrite...? Jeez....

[Cleita]

120. Yep, but they will defend to the last the right of every lying

crook and criminal to trash the spirit of the law with the letter of the law.

[fascisthunter]

127. They Are Conflating Freedom of Speech with Corporate Controlled Media

people can't just go on tv and swear without their being accountability can they? Freedom of Speech.... nothing is public about the MSM. If it were, they would have a point.

[DS1]

102. We do have laws against lying.

For real!

[Cleita]

121. Are they being enforced?

What good is a law if no one enforces it?

[DS1]

145. Only when they can, the Bush admin slashed the budget for the anti-lying task force.

[DailyGrind51]

129. If a lie could be connected with the loss of life, as in truth-in-labelling laws,

a case might be made, if malice can be proved. Of course, this is would be a legal first!

[fascisthunter]

133. That's Reasonable...

This is what I'm talking about. But it would have to be proven, which I believe is also reasonable.

[HughBeaumont]

144. It's not about lying.

It's about the fact that our machinery isn't as ruthless, greedy, insufferable, omnipotent and well-funded as theirs is.

That's what sucks.

Don't hate the game, hate the PLAYAHS!

Or something . . .

All I know is, this is going to be SHIT-funny when it comes time for the historians to define the George W Bush presidency. It can either be a disgusting bullshit-a-thon rewrite (like they did with St Brylcreeme) . . . or the truth. When all is said and done, we'll still know better.

[NuttyFluffers]

146. if on air i'd end every broadcast grilling guests "does my butt look bigger in this?"

and then if they don't give the right answer -- to my satisfaction -- we'll haul their ass to jail on the spot! mwa ha ha! world domination will be mine for the taking! all your responses are belong to me!

[Cleita]

147. And if they answered it, (they don't have to) would you be able to

handle the truth? However, that isn't the kind of truth I'm looking for. The only way that question would be valid is if you asked the saleslady in the clothing store you were trying pants or skirts on and she lied to you. Then sure file a complaint with her employer for lying to you.

[NuttyFluffers]

158. no, don't you see? they're always lying, either way. my butt is beautiful...

and they are a sycophantic liar if they merely agree saying that my butt isn't big in those jeans. they are also a malicious slanderer of my beauty if they disagree and say my but looks bigger. either way there is no "objective" truth, only my precious feelings. and if my feelings ever get hurt, whether they insult my booty or my intelligence, therefore i insist they are lying -- ergo we lock 'em up for a felony! whee!

:evilgrin:

[Trillo]

150. No, you see, you've got it all wrong. Lying is Good, GOod, GOOD!

It's pretty clear that being honest is a hindrance to personal achievement and rising to 'high places'. Lying is punished in schools, at least it was in the schools I went to some years ago. For years I wondered about this, the reason for punishing lying in schools, and I finally realized one major purpose is to create better liars, while appearing to do the opposite. What?

It works similarly to anti-spam tools. The poorer liars get caught and punished, leaving the better liars without the intentional training consequences of any punishment. The former falsely believe they need to be more honest, that's what they were told, perhaps taking honesty to a perfect level, while the latter don't give a damn, they say, "it's what nearly 'everyone' does", anyway.

So, you see, the fault is not in lying, but in training so many poorer liars that what they did was wrong, rather than teaching them that getting caught lying was their main problem, and therefore, after catching them and instead of punishing them, giving them training in better lying techniques for their own survival's sake.

---

I truly wish the above was sarcasm.

[Cleita]

156. It was close to sarcasm, but it was too true.

Thank you for your insight.

[Prophet 451]

154. "It may have been so decades ago as these countries were getting their health care"

Not quite but close. I'm British. The epic waiting times he's talking about were mainly a symptom of the Eighties when Thatcher's government massively underfunded the NHS (for all the reasons right-fringers always do), causing huge problems that we're still fixing even now.

The NHS is imperfect, there's no disputing that but if I call up my doctor this morning, I'll get an appointment probably today. When my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer about five years ago, she was diagnosed on Tuesday, had some more tests on Wednesday and went in for surgery on Saturday (she's now perfectly fit and well). When my grandmother was diagnosed with stomach cancer some years before that, she was in hospital by the following evening (Sadly, it was too advanced and she was too weak for surgery and she died a couple of weeks later). Yes, there are still places where there are waiting times of weeks for surgery but that's considered a scandal and we're trying to fix it. On the other hand, everyone gets the best care we can give them and if they die, it's despite the doctors doing their best to save them, not because some corporate suit decided saving them wasn't cost effective. Today, the career civil servants who administer the NHS do so quietly and efficiently, costing very little.

Remember Guilliani saying that in the US, his chances of surviving prostate cancer were 98% but in the UK, they were only 49%? Complete bullshit. The actual numbers were 99% for the US and 79% for the UK. The 20% difference is because men here (and I'm as bad as anyone) have this stupid macho thing where we don't get ourselves checked unless we're virtually bleeding from the eyes. The NHS has been telling us to get checked for years but for some reason, it hasn't sunk in.

Sorry if this was off the point but I thought I'd explain the current state of the NHS. The point is not to make Americans jealous but because I remain baffled why you guys haven't raised holy hell, stormed the capitol and rioted to get your own version.

[Cleita]

155. Thank you for saying this.

However your personal experience like mine with Kaiser Permanente will be regarded as anecdotal and not valid by those who prefer to say that health insurance is our only salvation as long as we don't get sick...cough...hidden cough. Even Michael Moore with his camera couldn't convince the gullible that we are being lied to on a massive scale not only about health care but everything that is touching us these days. Many of us are raising holy hell but unfortunately the size of our country swallows us up. It's so much harder.

[Heddi]

159. I think we also have a collective head up our ass as a country

People overwhelmingly want social programs...until you tell them that they'll have to pay for these social programs. Then suddenly there will be this new influx of "those people" sucking the teat dry for the rest of us, etc.

I'm a nurse. I work at the largest community hospital in my part of the country. We are also the largest level-1 trauma center in this part of the country. 80% of our clientelle are poor, homeless, immigrant, underserved, underserviced, no insurance.

What people don't "get" is that we are *already* paying for "those people" to get services in the health care community. However, we are paying MORE because we only give them the option of the already under-staffed and over-crowded emergency rooms as their PCP. They have very limited in a few cases, and absolutely NO access in the majority of cases to any kind of preventative care. There is no reason to come to the ER at 2am because of an ear infection, but for millions of people in this country, that's the only place they CAN go because they don't have insurance, don't have a way to go to a doctor's office to be seen where they will have to pay the office fee up front. Then add to that the cost of medications. God forbid it's more serious than an ear infection....diabetes? Hardly an inexpensive illness. Kidney failure? Heart or Lung Disease??? There is no other place for "those people" to go to get treatment for these problems other than the ER.

We already ARE paying for the care, at a much inflated cost than we should be paying because emergency room RN's and MD's shouldn't be treating ear infections. And when they do, the service rendered is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the cost if the person could have been seen by a doctor, gotten a prescription, and gone home.

We have an I ME MINE attitude in this country. I see it when "normal" people are my patients---they were on an alaskan cruise and have a headache,so they come to my ER and get admitted because they have A-fib (very common heart rhythm) THey're affluent, or at least not homeless. They don't have addictions to multiple substances, but they're sharing a room with someone who is. They get all adamant about "those people" clogging up the emergency rooms and my thought is "you are one of "those people" too" But because the don't SEE themselves as one of "those people", they feel that they have more of a right to social services, regardless of who "Those people" are. Citizens, non citizens, drug addicts, prostitutes, single mothers, battered women, prisoners, working homeless---this is who my patients are. These are the people I work with and treat 14 hours a night, 3-4 nights a week.

"those people" are not a drain to our society and to our health care. What is a drain to the health care system is the health care system itself. We are beheld to the insurance companies. They OWN healthcare. I see it every day, where MD's and RN's come up with clever ways to diagnose certain problems, or describe procedures a certain way so that they are paid for by insurance, medicare, medicaid, the VA, whatever. WE (healthcare workers) are quite aware of this problem in a very intimate way. I have had patients who have refused life-extending procedures because they could not afford the deductable. They don't take certain meds because they can't afford the every-other-month blood test that's required to be on the med.

If the general public realized that WE ARE GIVING FREE HEALTH CARE to many people, I think their heads would explode. Why not take out the middle-man---get rid of insurance companies. Just come out and say "Look, we subsidize Billions of dollars in health care costs through pro-bono and charity as it is. Let's just go ahead and extend that to everyone. We're already paying for it anyways so now EVERYONE can get coverage for whatever they need, at any time" and just fucking kick insurance companies out. YOu need to go to the dr, you go to the doctor. Simple as that.

[Cleita]

192. The problem is the insurance companies and HMOs and for any politician to even

entertain the idea that they must be included in a national health care program is disastrous because it will make any universal health plan very costly as the Massachusetts experiment with this has already proven in a short time. So every time I see these think tank goons get up and spread that propaganda, which is what the privatized health care industry has given them along with nice donations, it sets back the changes we need to get this kind of program going. I want the lying to stop so the average American can get the information they need to demand the legislation they want and need from their Congressional representatives and Senators.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

160. Amerika was built on lies...

your quest, however noble, is for what never was and never will be.

[bryant69]

164. Do you think we should abandon america

tear it down and hope tobuild up something better in its place?

Bryant

[asteroid2003QQ47]

210. Since you post on DU, it's safe to say...

that you, like me, are not of the "we" who have an America to abandon.
Have I got that right?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead."
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

[old mark]

170. We'd have to jail Newt forever.

We can hardly afford to feed him now.

mark

[onenote]

208. hell, if such a law had been around in 1863, someone could've jailed Abe Lincoln

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Absolute lies. Dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal" -- tell that to the slaves who were assigned a value of 3/5 of a person by "our fathers." And, for that matter, what is this "our fathers" bullshit?

If you think absolute truth in speech is achievable in a court of law, your are fooling yourself.

[treestar]

174. The only real way to fix this kind of problem

Is to teach critical thinking. The problem isn't the lying, it's the receivers of the lies just accepting things passively. Anyone who appears authoritative can get people to go along with them. It's always been so, but seems quite pronounced now. It's ironic, because you'd think that in the U.S., with all its freedoms, that it would be the opposite. Maybe other countries with experience of fascist or totalitarian governments know that the government or authority figues can be lying, having had that experience. It allows them to learn to be more critical. We haven't had that, and have developed a trust in our authorities. Now it's being abused and we're not paying enough attention.

[Cleita]

205. Well after we have educated the next generation I'm sure that will be

possible in ten or fifteen years. What do we do in the meantime?

[aspergris]

175. because it chills free speech and is inconsistent with democracy.

and it makes govt. the arbiter of what is truth and what is lies, which is TRULY orwellian.

iow, if you want freedom, then you give the AUTHORITY to the citizens to determine veracity, NOT the government.

this is really a basic element of freedom.

as soon as govt. becomes the arbiter of what is officially "truth" and what is officially "lies" and criminalizes the statements of the latter, you have dipped into authoritarian hell.

what you want is -plain and simple- authoritarian rule.

you don't want freedom.

do you want your govt. to be the arbiter of what is and isn't truth?

heck, no. that's inconsistent with freedom and democracy.

note that many times what is considered :"lying to the public" later turns out to be the truth.

just ask galileo.

[Cleita]

177. Galileo is not a good example. In that case you had the church deciding

what the truth was. Also, let's update your example and let's talk about religious sentiments infiltrating into our public school system and demanding that Creationism be taught as science. You and I know the Creationists cannot apply a scientific method of proof so it shouldn't be taught in place of science or it would be a lie. I think there is a place for Creationism though to be taught as a religious belief. I went to Catholic school and we were taught Genesis in religion class and Darwinism in science class. There was no conflict. Just two separate ideas taught in separate classes qualified as religious belief for the first and scientific fact for the latter (although in my day it was called a theory as the scientific community had not yet proven Darwin's theory). I'm not saying that all the Rush Limbaugh's of the country and Laura Ingrahams shouldn't be allowed to spout their spew. It's just when they put out lies and half truths they need to qualify them as having no factual basis other than their own opinion and biases. They need to indicate that they are pulling facts out of their asses and spinning other facts with their prejudices. You know it wouldn't hurt our liberal news people and pundits to be held to the same standards too.

To expect the ordinary person who is struggling to survive and feed their family to spend the hours I do trying to get the facts is ridiculous. I'm a retiree and can afford the time. Most people don't have that luxury. Also, you say we need to give the authority to the people. This is exactly what I want. Since I consider a real democracy to be government by the people and for the people it would work this way.

[aspergris]

178. the church WAS the state

look, it's really this simple

either you trust the populace or you don't

i do. that's why i believe in free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the govt., freedom of religion, right to keep and bear arms, etc.

because i believe power rests with the people.

and if govt. is the arbiter of what is true and what isn't and has the authority to punish you for speaking UNTRUTHS (determined by them of course), then there is not freedom . period.

i believe the rush's, the laura's, the mike malloy's, the rhodes, and ALL of them should be able to "spout spew". Do you HONESTLY believe that only those on the right spout bullshit.

get real.

the power rests with the people. bad ideas are countered with GOOD ideas, not censorship. and fining/criminalizing the spouting of "bad ideas" or untruths as determined by the great ministry of truth (tm) puts WAY too much power in the hands of govt.

read orwell. again.

govt. is NOT the arbiter of truth in a free society. period.

it's really that simple.

i want freedom

and freedom has a cost.

[Cleita]

182. Yes, it was and that is why we have separation of church and state today.

We need to go further and have a separation of business and state as well. That is part of the reason all our rights are being taken from us bit by bit. As I said in another reply to you, would you want the government to not inspect your food to be sure that you are getting what the label says? Have you ever lived in a country where you had to buy your meat on the hoof and have it killed in your presence to be sure that what you were getting really was chicken or lamb and not something else like roadkill or stray cat. I mean you trust when you go to the market that what the label says is what you are getting and not something else. That's because you have government regulation that keeps the business of the supermarket honest. This is no different. I want truth in labeling.

[aspergris]

185. get reaL

you are comparing food inspectors with govt. truth arbiters.

there is no constitutional right to sell bad meat. there is a constitutional right to sell bad ideas.

period.

fascists are all alike.

you will justify govt. power with the "it's for our own good".

it disgusts me.

read orwell. and the constitution.

if you want an official govt. ministry of truth, then feel free to live in any # of totalitarian countries that determine official truth.

i choose freedom.

and yes, freedom is DANGEROUS.

there is no constitutional right to sell unsafe meat

there IS a constitutional right to sell BAD PRESS.

[Cleita]

186. I'm not talking about bad ideas I am talking about lies.

You are saying there would be a Ministry of Truth. I hardly think a DA is that. He has to keep track of a variety of infractions and violations of the laws, not just a particular type. I want truth in labeling. It is no different whether it's food for my body or food for my mind. I want the information presented to me and labeled, as truthful, factual, theory, supposition or fiction. I don't think that's hard to do unless your whole purpose is to spread lies and disinformation, then it would be hard for those entities.

[aspergris]

190. there is no difference

it's really that simple.

free press works. it's dangerous. but it works.

there is no better way.

i don't feel like teaching civics to you. it scares the crap out of me that there are people who think like you do, and who are willing to cede ESSENTIAL freedoms (the single most important freedom) for a feeling of security and the warm safety blanket of govt protecting you, and all those stupid people who are just too dumb to discern truth from lies without their govt. overlords doing it for them.

your post says it all. you want only govt. approved speech spoonfed to you. free from all those icky ideas that might upset your fragile little constitution (pun intended)

i'm done with this. if you want authoritarian control, if you want government determining truth and what speech is acceptable be my guest. history has proven the folly of that approach and I will stand for freedom. and i thank god most dems, independants, libertarians and repubs would never go for what you propose- govt. ministry of truth.

[Cleita]

199. We don't have a free press when the WH is feeding the press everything that

it broadcasts or prints. Just holding them to standard of truth and facts and journalistic integrity would stop this unless they have become so powerful now that they can ignore the laws. I'm hoping it's not too late. I never spoke of authoritarian control. I spoke of a few regulations holding them to standards of honesty that would be enforced only if the violations were egregious and blatant. The penalties would be mostly fines and maybe being shut down for a period of time if they are really blatant offenders. It's no different than controls that most industries have to comply with to keep them honest. We need to keep this industry honest too. I mean aren't you glad that your insurance company has to comply with laws that state they have to pay up if you are in an accident? If there were no laws about this they could LIE to you about your coverage and then deny you restitution. Oh, wait, I believe that deregulation has already brought us this in much of the industry. Welcome to Libertarian freedom. Caveat Emptor and all that rubbish.

[bryant69]

187. Right on! n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

183. Outlaws don't care about laws!

Neocons are above the law.

[Cleita]

189. That's because they are getting away with murder.

Slap a few fines on them or even shut them down for a week until they clean up their act and I believe you will see them suddenly caring.

[onenote]

200. Because we have something called the First Amendment.

As the SCOTUS wisely held a quarter century ago: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and, like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated." Miami Herald Pub. Co. v Tornillo, 418 US 241 (1974)

[Cleita]

203. I'm sure a news guy like Benjamin Franklin did not have

the "free" press that we have today in mind when he and the other founding fathers penned the First Amendment. The White House faxing talking points to all the sycophantic media to parrot every day without a thought to back checking for facts is not a free press.

[onenote]

207. I suspect that the founding fathers were quite familiar with journalistic excess

Plus, how would your approach? Who would be subject to liability? Journalists? What defines a "journalist"? Is a blogger is a journalist? What if a non-journalist -- an "average citizen," or an "expert" or a politician -- comes on an interview program and says something that is untrue? Is the interviewer expected to be a font of all knowledge and immediately object? Can the interviewer be sued? Can the interviewee be sued? Who has standing to sue (standing to sue being mandated by the Constitution)?

Its an unworkable idea. The chilling effect on speech would be enormous. Progressives would be afraid to speak because they'd face suits brought from the right alleging that some factoid was untrue or that some statement of opinion was really a statement of fact that cannot be proven. And the same would happen in the other direction.

There would be endless fights, with little benefit to anyone.

Sorry, but the founding fathers got this one right.