We seriously need to consider criminalizing lies.

[pmv]

You're right. They abolished it in the UK in 2010.

Criminal libel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know about UK, but I don't think libel has been enforced here as a crime for a long while, regardless of when it was technically repealed. Adultery was a crime in many states until fairly recently, may even still be in some states, but hasn't been enforced in a long while. My guess is Georgia was the last holdout in formally repealing criminal libel.

Though from that linked article - seems that it has at least been occasionally partly-enforced. Or maybe this story is really just about all-too-typical police behaviour? (Getting your ex-wife thrown in jail for bad-mouthing you on Facebook!)

One couple discovered the implications of Georgia’s recently repealed laws during what started as a Facebook spat. After Anne King complained about her ex-husband (a police officer) failing to bring medicine to her house for her and her sick children on Facebook, police arrested King and her friend who commented on the post for “criminal defamation of character.” King was allegedly jailed for about four hours before leaving on a $1,000 bond.


During the hearing, Judge Ralph Todd evidently told the women that they could have had the same discussion verbally and it would not have been against the law, but since she published it for the public to see, it was illegal. The case then went to a state judge who dismissed the charges, saying he didn’t know why King and her friend were in court to begin with. Now King is filing a civil lawsuit against her ex-husband and his colleague for violating her constitutional rights.

 

[Sonikku]

I keep trying to figure out why it would be a bad thing to criminalize lying. Regardless, something HAS to be done to hold media outlets and politicians accountable for lying. We cannot keep ignoring this. It obviously is not self-correcting, and the only reason we are not a full-blown dictatorship right now comes down to pure luck that Trump was so incompetent.

I disagree. I think a better option would be "You can say or lie about whatever you want, you just can't call yourself News while you do it".

 

[Jaskalas]

We seriously need to consider criminalizing lies.

The implications.....

Should studies that contradict each other be made criminal? Which one takes precedence, the former or the latter? Does a study "proven" false constitute criminal lying in your view? I am sure you have seen and heard enough to recall several subjects on which experts have it both ways depending on who you ask. Both with separate and diametrically opposite study results ready to back them.

Can two realities exist, or do we criminalize our opponents? Can they only be permitted an existence if they can defend themselves in a court of law? What if the Judge is biased towards his own side? Who is neutral if we are attacking one another? Why wouldn't your enemies gain power and silence you for lying?

Free Speech is an inherent trust in the people to hear, to think, to judge for themselves, to express and to truly be free.

Your stated desire is the antithesis of America's existence. The trick is to stop Trumpkins without helping them burn it to the ground. I know that is no easy task. We cannot even describe, exactly, how to save it so in desperation you came up with your idea. But I know burning down our institutions and waging war on one another is only going to serve their cause.

The flaw is that you think you can win this fight. But the truth is everyone loses in such a war on the home front.

 

[Muse]

Right wing rags are dumping on Gen Russell Honoree for saying some of the police were complicit. Guess what, some were. Meanwhile shit like this which is an insult to the good capitol police goes unchallenged.

I wish one of Dems would put an injured officer on the stand and that person can tell Johnson to his face what they think of him.

Johnson is a creepy guy. Very. He had a premise and gathered a bunch of evidence, constructed a presentation designed to support his premise and enacted it after the fact in front of cameras and a microphone, sort of a caricature of himself. Damn glad I didn't go to law school, that's how I feel when I see people like him. His whole schtick was in support of the idea that you can keep your prejudices as long as you can go to whatever lengths you need to not to challenge them. Someone needs to get him high.

 

[Muse]

What shall we do with people who say they don’t hate themselves? What shall we say to those who believe in good and evil, who think the self and the ‘something else’ exists?

Where is the truth teller who says’ “Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou!”?

I sometimes think of one of the utterances of one of our great modern artists:

There are different levels of truth. - Bob Dylan

One of the great artistic treatments of subjectivity is the Akira Kurosawa movie Rashomon. The 3 characters recall an event involving all 3, each from their own perspective, and each of the 3 is in stark contrast to the others. It's how they experienced and remembered the event. So, which is the truth? Or does "the truth" even have a meaning in some contexts? If it does, can it possibly be realized at times? I think in a lot of circumstances/situations/instances/contexts "the truth" is not ascertainable. That film is a classic.

 

[Jaskalas]

One of the great artistic treatments of subjectivity is the Akira Kurosawa movie Rashomon. The 3 characters recall an event involving all 3, each from their own perspective, and each of the 3 is in stark contrast to the others. It's how they experienced and remembered the event. So, which is the truth? Or does "the truth" even have a meaning in some contexts? If it does, can it possibly be realized sometimes? It's a classic.

Coming from another thread, I begin to suspect we (as a people) are even using language differently. Same words, different meanings. Sometimes entirely different. I don't mean their face value - but their greater context and meaning. Perhaps the subtext. There are things implied that each group is taking home separately. Like your 3 characters in stark contrast, each with their own perspective.

 

[Muse]

Coming from another thread, I begin to suspect we (as a people) are even using language differently. Same words, different meanings. Sometimes entirely different. I don't mean their face value - but their greater context and meaning. Perhaps the subtext. There are things implied that each group is taking home separately. Like your 3 characters in stark contrast, each with their own perspective.

Worth seeing, that movie. Kurosawa is one of the all time great movie maker/directors. Rashoman was one of his earliest famous movies, a classic, great. IRRC, preceded Sanjuro and Yojimbo (both fantastic samurai movies), and of course, The Seven Samurai. And, of course, Kurosawa went on to make other great great movies.

 

[Moonbeam]

I sometimes think of one of the utterances of one of our great modern artists:

There are different levels of truth. - Bob Dylan

One of the great artistic treatments of subjectivity is the Akira Kurosawa movie Rashomon. The 3 characters recall an event involving all 3, each from their own perspective, and each of the 3 is in stark contrast to the others. It's how they experienced and remembered the event. So, which is the truth? Or does "the truth" even have a meaning in some contexts? If it does, can it possibly be realized sometimes? It's a classic.

Mulla Nasrudin went for a walk with a disciple and saw a Dervish at a distance. The Dervish pointed at the sky to indicate there is one truth that covers us all. The disciple, tensing at the appearance of the odd behavior and suspicious they had encountered a mad mad, relaxed when the Mulla held up a rope he was carrying to say, and ordinary humanity tries to find it by means as ridiculous as climbing into the sky on a rope. Yes said the disciple. If he tries anything funny we will tie him up.

One Zen master said if you don’t have a stick I will give you one but if you do I will take it away. Another, hearing this said, if you have a stick I will give you one, but if you don’t I will take it away.

Speaking of Kurosawa, what I want to know is how Red Beard knew how to get his deranged patient to take her medicine. Hmmmm?

 

[dank69]

The implications.....

Should studies that contradict each other be made criminal? Which one takes precedence, the former or the latter? Does a study "proven" false constitute criminal lying in your view? I am sure you have seen and heard enough to recall several subjects on which experts have it both ways depending on who you ask. Both with separate and diametrically opposite study results ready to back them.

Can two realities exist, or do we criminalize our opponents? Can they only be permitted an existence if they can defend themselves in a court of law? What if the Judge is biased towards his own side? Who is neutral if we are attacking one another? Why wouldn't your enemies gain power and silence you for lying?

Free Speech is an inherent trust in the people to hear, to think, to judge for themselves, to express and to truly be free.

Your stated desire is the antithesis of America's existence. The trick is to stop Trumpkins without helping them burn it to the ground. I know that is no easy task. We cannot even describe, exactly, how to save it so in desperation you came up with your idea. But I know burning down our institutions and waging war on one another is only going to serve their cause.

The flaw is that you think you can win this fight. But the truth is everyone loses in such a war on the home front.

There would have to be a huge consensus on what is or is not a lie. Maybe something like 97% of experts on the specific topic agree.
Also, intent and ignorance would have to be factors when it comes to what is actionable and/or what the consequences are. Take your study example:

Presenting what they did, what they found and some possible conclusions that turn out to be faulty under peer scrutiny? Not actionable.
Lying about their methods/data/results? Actionable

A major key in all this is that politicians and judges would have no say in what is or is not a lie. One "expert" or a small group of "experts" would not be enough to classify something as a lie.

 

[jameny5]

Can we use electro transcranial shock treatment to stop the relentless lies? Emphasis on the word "shock".... You ever take a carpet and put it on a clothes line and beat it with a broom to get the dust out? I mean other than these solutions and incarceration I'm not sure what can be done.

 

[Muse]

I disagree. I think a better option would be "You can say or lie about whatever you want, you just can't call yourself News while you do it".

Are you being serious?

 

[Muse]

A rumination:

I just think that the best defense against lying (I think we're talking about the media here, but could be wrong, or is it in legislative bodies, government, or all of these?) is to, through education, policy, cultural development ... instill in the populace an aversion to lying, prevarication. I think most of us who frequent this forum (and everybody who does has their feet held to the fire when it's appropriate, yes it's rhetorical) hold people accountable for the veracity of assertions. We in this forum have that filter. People who post here without regard for the veracity of their information get roasted. The complaint giving rise to this thread is that in many circumstances that affect our planet in important ways there is insufficient filtering and damage is done, major, major damage as we are seeing now in America.

What's to be done? Criminalization, well, I'm not a lawyer, I suppose there are legal experts who would have some opinions on this matter. But to me, more than anything, I think you need to raise general consciousness of the citizenry to the point where people (1) don't condone lying, (2) won't tolerate lies, (3) hunger for and nurture integrity.

I apologize for a couple of tortured sentences above, but I think if you read them carefully, they do make sense.

 

[Ajay]

Yeah, no.

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

So, sometimes being a democratic republic sucks.

More info for the interested: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

 

[Sunburn74]

So it’s okay to lie when it’s about national security? Sadly this is where most of the most egregious lies seem to happen.


This would be unconstitutional at least for members of Congress under the Speech and Debate Clause. When it comes to the executive, again we sadly rely on the executive branch to enforce criminal law and I doubt it will be jailing its own people any time soon.


Aren’t libel and defamation laws already basically this? I look at what Devin Nunes is doing with them already and that’s only for civil penalties.

Also, much of what you’re talking about wouldn’t be actionable anyway. Like when Trump says the election was stolen, that’s not going to be actionable anyway as it’s an opinion.

Again, if you make ‘lies’ criminal offenses what’s going to happen is the people in power get to decide what a lie is, and very quickly a lie becomes ‘statements they don’t like’.

Speech and debate clause is about arresting people during their time of speech and debate during congress. It's not about prosecuting people for lying. It's actually a mechanism to prevent people from stopping or altering key votes by just temporarily arresting key voting members.

I don't really understand your national security argument. Classified stuff you simply say is classified or cannot be disclosed/confirmed/denied. Lying about national security however : for example saying we have troops on a border when you know for a fact we don't have troops on a border could be prosecutable.

Theoretically yes the executive branch as they control federal attorneys somewhat could control prosecution of this somewhat but it's also possible for congress to create an independent agency (like the budget agency or the ethics agency) that does that.

There is subjectivity of course regarding what is and isn't a lie but subjectivity is part of our laws in general. Again libel, slander, defamation are all prosecutable and it's a matter of how bad was it and do you think a judge will buy it. Again my punishment would be civil to begin: fines and community service and with repeated gross infractions move to imprisonment.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you want to prevent lying help children to love the truth. Start by helping them to love themselves. It is our natural state to seek to fill ourselves with love and wisdom. What we do instead is to turn that pursuit into a fear of evil, that our will to truth will do to our kids what it did to us. It is the non conforming that get cast out. Never cast off your prison of lies..
To Imagine you are the truth teller and a member of the truth teller's cult, of which there are endless numbers, while it is those deplorable others who lie, that is all to play the same game. The truth is not found by the ego desire to be beyond reproach.

 

[hal2kilo]

Something happened in DC on the 6th of January?

GOP is still gaslighting about the Capitol riot: Trump's allies claim coup and QAnon never happened | Salon.com

First, they tried to minimize Trump's responsibility for the insurrection. That tactic fell apart after an impeachment trial where the prosecutors made such an airtight case for Trump's guilt that even people who voted to acquit him pretended it was on a legal technicality, rather than try to argue for his innocence. Now, some folks on the right are trying a new tactic, one you might call the "go big or go home" strategy. Trump's loudest defenders are now outright denying that the nation saw what we all clearly saw on January 6.