God 
This is what fascist propaganda looks like.
Vicki Kyriakakis@godpod What. In the heck. Is this guy smoking?
Zelensky LITERALLY in his speech just talked about Christmas.
Tucker sure is keen to prove definitively that he's a RUSSIAN asset.
Nona Rose@VickiKyriakakis @godpod you assume anyone who watches tucker is actually going to watch Zelensky’s speech?
@nona80_swanette @godpod No. Just stunned at the level of dishonesty and bile and lying. I don’t have words for these people anymore.
Kim Spence-Jones #FBPE@VickiKyriakakis @nona80_swanette @godpod
This is why I think the most important reform we need — even above PR — is a law criminalising “deliberately or recklessly misleading the public”. I include ‘Recklessly’, because “I didn’t know…” should not be a defence for the bullshitters, if the truth is easily ascertained.
If voters are not told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, their votes mean nothing. When politicians (and the media) get away with lying, democracy is dead.
@KimSJ @VickiKyriakakis @godpod not just in the US, there are quite a few countries who could do with this sort of legislation, though the US seems to be leading the reporting idiocy stakes at the moment.
@nona80_swanette Exactly. I’m in UK, and we certainly need a law against bullshit! The problem is, reality has a left-wing bias (according to where politics seems to be at the moment). The Right can only make its case by lying. Unfortunately, to those not paying close attention the attractive lies resonate more than unpalatable truths.
Jordan@KimSJ @nona80_swanette I've heard a few times that wherever the US goes the UK follows. It definitely seems to be the case in terms of our media.
@jordane121 @KimSJ I’m in Australia and we’re definitely not immune.
Dan Miller VFX@jordane121 @KimSJ @nona80_swanette
Rupert Murdoch is the common link.
@danmillervfx @jordane121 @KimSJ yes, and the stripping away of media ownership laws which at least helped a little in curtailing his stranglehold.
Andrew D.@KimSJ @nona80_swanette remember the McLibel case? Trump himself was eager for the chance to sue people who said things about him—not for truth, but to crush them.
@andrewd I’d prefer it to be criminal not civil law. It’s wrong that it’s left to private money to defend the truth.
@KimSJ as we’ve seen though, criminal law can be highly political. Look at the history of the US Sedition Act, McCarthyism etc. I don’t disagree that the problem is difficult. I just distrust the “watchers.” Yet I’m thrilled with the Alex Jones verdicts.
It’s a novel time we have now that everyone has a potentially worldwide soapbox. Who knows how it will play out, and the safeties needed.
Last, to heck with Tucker Carlson. Let’s end the Fox News subsidies and him along with them.
It’s a novel time we have now that everyone has a potentially worldwide soapbox. Who knows how it will play out, and the safeties needed.
Last, to heck with Tucker Carlson. Let’s end the Fox News subsidies and him along with them.
@andrewd Agreed, it’s an incredibly hard thing to get the balance right, but my instinct is that we’ve lost the plot. Imagine how many lives would have been (and will be) saved if Covid disinformation had been suppressed! Of if the Russian apologists were not weakening the resolve of the West to face an outrageous aggressor.
IAmPure@KimSJ @nona80_swanette not surprising considering those unpalatable truths mean they were wrong the whole time. We’ve seen throughout history the lengths the guilty will go to avoid addressing their wrongs.
Thomas Larsen@KimSJ @nona80_swanette saying reality has a left wing bias depends on your frame of reference. Given the idea of left and right is a human construct the centre is somewhat arbitrary.
If we agree that reality is “real” (i.e. what the truth is) then framing that in a left/right dichotomy doesn’t make any sense.
If we agree that reality is “real” (i.e. what the truth is) then framing that in a left/right dichotomy doesn’t make any sense.
Gabriel@KimSJ @VickiKyriakakis @nona80_swanette @godpod thats a slippery slope… What if the regulators resulting from this law are corrupted by partisanship? If something we learn from the last few years is that ‘truth is not truth’ is a valid argument for many
@gabotuit If the courts can no longer be trusted to determine truth, then we are in a really dark place! The US is dangerously close to that point, with judges like Cannon and Thomas. Fortunately, the judiciary in UK has always been less politically influenced.
iluXan 🤣@gabotuit @KimSJ I used to think hate speech and outright lies have to be banned and stopped. I’m just a guy off the internet, but there are very good examples why that can really turn bad
This article makes a strong argument - https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/09/28/why-we-must-still-defend-free-speech/ - every kind of speech can be deemed “hate” against someone, even if the original laws are intended to protect it. Have been expanding my perspective slowly
Why We Must Still Defend Free Speech | David Cole
Many have asked why the ACLU represented Jason Kessler, the organizer of the white supremacist rally, in challenging Charlottesville’s last-minute effort to revoke his permit. The city proposed to move his rally a mile from its originally approved site—Emancipation Park, the location of the Robert E. Lee monument whose removal Kessler sought to protest—but offered no reason why the protest would be any easier to manage a mile away. As ACLU offices across the country have done for thousands of marchers for almost a century, the ACLU of Virginia gave Kessler legal help to preserve his permit. Should the fatal violence that followed prompt recalibration of the scope of free speech?
@iluxan I think that’s bullshit. The ‘average man’ knows when stuff is hate speech. Pretending that we can’t distinguish good from bad is what has got us into this mess. The ultimate ‘both sides ism”
@KimSJ I completely agree with you that the average man within their particular social niche definitely knows. The thing is that defining it in law in such a way that I can’t be turned against the minority groups it’s intended to protect is apparently hard (apparently, as I’m learning, I checked some but not all references). Plus the govt that enforcer it can become very ideological
Consider skimming https://www.davisvanguard.org/2017/08/must-defend-free-speech/ and try the Hate book by Nadine Strossen
From the book: “During the 1830s, many Southern states enacted laws suppressing abolitionist speech, which was feared to spur violence—in particular, slave rebellions”
““In the UK, ‘hate speech’ has come to include . . . virulent criticism of UK soldiers fighting in war,” citing a 2012 case of a Muslim British teenager, Azhar Ahmed, who was arrested for his strongly worded Facebook post deploring British soldiers’ killing of Afghan civilians.”
@iluxan I don’t recall that case. Do you have context? Could it be that the post suggested that there was a policy of killing civilians?
@iluxan I see the danger, but tolerating intolerance is also very dangerous.
@KimSJ yeah. I don’t know. That’s where I started too, still thinking
@iluxan I find debating the subject does help.
@KimSJ that’s what I did with a couple of friends recently live, and also why I posted here. I don’t really write/talk much, mostly consume. So when my friend pushed me I didn’t really have everything as solid as I thought
The thing is, I get there’s a huge disbalance - the people running major networks should be accountable for not just outright lying. But my friend, as well as this book, make a very strong case against banning people because there isn’t a clear line
@InfamousUnkown I’m not suggesting a law against hate speech, I’m asking for a law against stating ‘alternative’ facts. Much easier to police. Even Trump-appointed judges will stop short of declaring up is down or black is white!
@trae Yeah, actually so do I, but we’ve got off down a sidetrack. If you read back the thread, what I’m advocating is a law not against hate speech, but against ‘misleading the public’ — lies, and irresponsible bullshit. That would have some effect on hate speech, but it would have a far bigger effect on preserving democracy (and public health, as a bonus). It’s a lot easier for courts to adjudicate on, too.
@KimSJ @trae you’re right. I didn’t reply because I meant (and started) to try to find some reading on trying to find some past attempts at this and how it worked. I didn’t get far yet, been low energy lately. I imagine it could also be hard to define, but hoping I’m wrong. I mean, there are laws against medical malpractice, and those are probably quite broad too
Louis Ingenthron@KimSJ @VickiKyriakakis @nona80_swanette @godpod
Hard disagree. You'd think such a law would be used against Carlson, but if history has shown us anything, it would instead be weaponized against BLM leaders and the like instead.
Fascists try to use the force of government to shut down speech. Please don't give them shiny new toys because you're scared of fascism.
The best answer to bad speech is more good speech.
Willard@KimSJ @VickiKyriakakis @nona80_swanette @godpod It was Reagan who killed the Fairness Doctrine... truth in broadcasting, that make FOX "News" possible.
@Goby Government by bullshit and lies has been a long time in the making. If only the Left took such long views!
@KimSJ the real Left takes much much longer views.
Joachim Frank@Goby @KimSJ @VickiKyriakakis @nona80_swanette @godpod
Many of our present problems go right back to this actor and fake politician. I could not stand it when he opened his mouth and nothing but insincerity came out of it
Many of our present problems go right back to this actor and fake politician. I could not stand it when he opened his mouth and nothing but insincerity came out of it