6 ms·

Reported by the same NPR that published this: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-constitutionally-speaking https://www.wnycstudios.

Reported by the same NPR that published this: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-constitutionally-speaking https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-med... https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brief-response https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie... Unfortunately they aren't exactly a proponent of free speech themselves.

belltaco 5y ago
Classic strawman, atleast the second link. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426181
- jessaustin 5y ago
  I don't see the strings "Taibbi" or "strawman" at that link? That's just some sort of "blog-on-HN" post by you? How is it relevant?
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Because Tabibi is intentionally confusing #1 and #2 in the examples in that link. Fake news isn't a marketplace of ideas, it's the opposite. NPR is calling for roadblocks on fake news and misinformation. Many intellectual people who should better seem to intentionally promote the right to spread fake news and facts as something good for society because it is primarily helping their side politically. Whereas free speech is being able to speak your mind freely. We already have some limited laws restricting free speech like in cases of fraud and libel. Why shouldn't they be extended to news sources making up bullshit that never happened like NPR was suggesting?
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Taibbi didn't cite any specific examples, so it's unclear how any examples could have been confused. He just wrote that a particular discussion program should have featured a wider range of opinions. How are we to differentiate speaking one's mind freely from spreading misinformation? No human possesses perfect information.
      - belltaco 5y ago
        Spreading third party misinformation is different from creating said misinformation. You could ask them where they got the misinformation and go up the chain till you find who knowingly made it up and don't have someone else to blame.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        Whose speech are you going to outlaw: the creator or the repeater? Who decides what is "misinformation"?
        belltaco 5y ago
        Again, you're using the term 'speech' to describe fake news, to frame the discussion. Why is that term not used when people commit fraud or scams? Also the word 'outlaw'. What if tech companies don't amplify the fake news of both creators and repeaters? As far as the law is concerned a narrow and carefully crafted law can written, a repeater does not get in trouble unless it can be proven without a doubt that they knew it was fake news yet chose to spread it. As far as who decides it(in the legal system), we already have a system that works fairly decently, the court system. Maybe just civil sanctions, like a $500 fine. The accused will have a chance to explain to the court and the public their rationale behind what they wrote/said. We already have libel and other laws that restrict free speech. E.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#United_State... This law wouldn't affect opinions in the slightest. Saying "x gender should stay home", "y race people are terrible" would still not violate law. Again, this is something that I just threw together, I am sure there are many smarter people than me who can refine it so we can protect true free speech while restricting fake news.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        We seem to have drifted from the seemingly impossible task of determining truth to the definitely impossible task of determining what someone believed at the moment of speech. Authoritarianism is terrible for humans. Pray you never have to answer in court for this thread.

belltaco 5y ago

Classic strawman, atleast the second link. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426181 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28426181

jessaustin 5y ago
I don't see the strings "Taibbi" or "strawman" at that link? That's just some sort of "blog-on-HN" post by you? How is it relevant?
- belltaco 5y ago
  Because Tabibi is intentionally confusing #1 and #2 in the examples in that link. Fake news isn't a marketplace of ideas, it's the opposite. NPR is calling for roadblocks on fake news and misinformation. Many intellectual people who should better seem to intentionally promote the right to spread fake news and facts as something good for society because it is primarily helping their side politically. Whereas free speech is being able to speak your mind freely. We already have some limited laws restricting free speech like in cases of fraud and libel. Why shouldn't they be extended to news sources making up bullshit that never happened like NPR was suggesting?
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Taibbi didn't cite any specific examples, so it's unclear how any examples could have been confused. He just wrote that a particular discussion program should have featured a wider range of opinions. How are we to differentiate speaking one's mind freely from spreading misinformation? No human possesses perfect information.
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Spreading third party misinformation is different from creating said misinformation. You could ask them where they got the misinformation and go up the chain till you find who knowingly made it up and don't have someone else to blame.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        Whose speech are you going to outlaw: the creator or the repeater? Who decides what is "misinformation"?
        belltaco 5y ago
        Again, you're using the term 'speech' to describe fake news, to frame the discussion. Why is that term not used when people commit fraud or scams? Also the word 'outlaw'. What if tech companies don't amplify the fake news of both creators and repeaters? As far as the law is concerned a narrow and carefully crafted law can written, a repeater does not get in trouble unless it can be proven without a doubt that they knew it was fake news yet chose to spread it. As far as who decides it(in the legal system), we already have a system that works fairly decently, the court system. Maybe just civil sanctions, like a $500 fine. The accused will have a chance to explain to the court and the public their rationale behind what they wrote/said. We already have libel and other laws that restrict free speech. E.g https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising#United_State... This law wouldn't affect opinions in the slightest. Saying "x gender should stay home", "y race people are terrible" would still not violate law. Again, this is something that I just threw together, I am sure there are many smarter people than me who can refine it so we can protect true free speech while restricting fake news.
        jessaustin 5y ago
        We seem to have drifted from the seemingly impossible task of determining truth to the definitely impossible task of determining what someone believed at the moment of speech. Authoritarianism is terrible for humans. Pray you never have to answer in court for this thread.