Fake News for Big Brother
Tim May
timcmay at got.net
Tue Apr 29 10:21:01 PDT 2003
On Tuesday, April 29, 2003, at 08:29 AM, David Howe wrote:
> at Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:16 PM, Trei, Peter <ptrei at rsasecurity.com>
> was seen to say:
>> 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
> 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
More information about the Testlist
mailing list