I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there *were* a law against news media presenting false information. The question becomes 'What is truth?', and 'Who decides". Laws of this type are used in many tyrannies (recently, Zimbabwe) to persecute reporters on the grounds that they were 'libeling the government'. I think there is a distinction between truth as an absolute, the twisted wording required to avoid libel in the uk, and deliberately lieing to people who believe you are a source of
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:16 PM, Trei, Peter <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> was seen to say: truth about the world they can't see. The UK has some pretty strong rules in this area - for instance, a newsreader can't be seen to promote (advertise) a product, as a viewer could confuse marketing (which is always a bit suspect) with "news" (which is supposed to be unbiassed and as accurate as the broadcaster can make it) and in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant - not fun at all.
'Truth in media' is a sword that cuts both ways. Indeed - but (at least in a free press) there is supposed to be a distinction between "marketing" "news" and "propaganda". Of course, freedom of the presses has only ever been available to those who own presses....
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 08:29 AM, David Howe wrote:
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Problems would arise if there *were* a law against news media presenting false information. The question becomes 'What is truth?', and 'Who decides". Laws of this type are used in many tyrannies (recently, Zimbabwe) to persecute reporters on the grounds that they were 'libeling the government'. I think there is a distinction between truth as an absolute, the twisted wording required to avoid libel in the uk, and deliberately lieing to people who believe you are a source of
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:16 PM, Trei, Peter <ptrei@rsasecurity.com> was seen to say: truth about the world they can't see. The UK has some pretty strong rules in this area - for instance, a newsreader can't be seen to promote (advertise) a product, as a viewer could confuse marketing (which is always a bit suspect) with "news" (which is supposed to be unbiassed and as accurate as the broadcaster can make it) and in libel/slander cases, the burden of proof is on the defendant - not fun at all.
'Truth in media' is a sword that cuts both ways. Indeed - but (at least in a free press) there is supposed to be a distinction between "marketing" "news" and "propaganda". Of course, freedom of the presses has only ever been available to those who own presses....
This interpretation is certainly not supported by libertarian principles. I outlined the reasons in my previoius, longer, post. I agree that things are not like this in the U.K., but they "should" be. If the state has the authority to classify words as "marketing" or "new" or "propaganda," all is basically lost. And "freedom of the press" is indeed limited to those with presses, except presses have long been a nonbarrier to speech, given the incredible low cost of mimeograph machines, offset printing, laser printing, and so on. And now we have the Net.
--Tim May "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." --Alexander Fraser Tyler
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:21 PM, Tim May <timcmay@got.net> was seen to say:
If the state has the authority to classify words as "marketing" or "news" or "propaganda," all is basically lost. It is difficult to define a particular piece of data as one of the three as an abstract. however, you *can* make the distinction between marketing/propaganda and news (although it is difficult) and the concept of *not* deliberately lieing for political or financial gain isn't really a hard one.
And "freedom of the press" is indeed limited to those with presses, except presses have long been a nonbarrier to speech, given the incredible low cost of mimeograph machines, offset printing, laser printing, and so on. And now we have the Net. *lol* Make two statements. put one of them on CNN, the BBC, and all the other "official" news outlets, broadcast it on the commerical tv/radio channels and internationally recognised print media take the other and do whatever else you want with it - publish it all over the web, copy off a few hundred (or thousand) sheets and hand them out in the street; set up a small radio station and broadcast it to your local neighbourhood, take a megaphone and shout it out in public places.
Which of the two will 98% of the public believe, and which will be derided as a crackpot theory (hint, the answer isn't "whichever is true") remember that more than half of americans are firmly convinced saddam was responsible for 9/11 - despite the media circus blaming it on OBL last year (and they will believe something else next year, when the US attacks yet another middle east country)
On Wednesday, April 30, 2003, at 04:00 AM, David Howe wrote:
If the state has the authority to classify words as "marketing" or "news" or "propaganda," all is basically lost. It is difficult to define a particular piece of data as one of the
at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 6:21 PM, Tim May <timcmay@got.net> was seen to say: three as an abstract. however, you *can* make the distinction between marketing/propaganda and news (although it is difficult) and the concept of *not* deliberately lieing for political or financial gain isn't really a hard one.
I strongly disagree. And, fortunately, the First Amendment has none of the language you apparently think is in it, the stuff about "lying" and "political or financial gain." I acknowledge that things are quite different in the U.K., an adhocracy with virtually no codified rights, but we are quite clearly here talking about the U.S. situation, as evidenced in several of the messages. --Tim May "Dogs can't conceive of a group of cats without an alpha cat." --David Honig, on the Cypherpunks list, 2001-11
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 10:45:03AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
I strongly disagree. And, fortunately, the First Amendment has none of the language you apparently think is in it, the stuff about "lying" and "political or financial gain."
Yes. Falsely saying "I love you" is, last I checked, constitutionally protected. Political speech is by definition intended for political gain and courts have said that lies at the heart of the 1A. As for financial gain, the Supremes will have a chance to weigh in on this -- they heard oral arguments in the Nike case last week -- let's hope they do the right thing. -Declan
participants (3)
-
David Howe -
Declan McCullagh -
Tim May