Does the 1st Amendment protect lies. . . .

a reply to: IAMTAT

Courts can compel journalists to reveal their confidential sources and jail those who do not (and it happens) for contempt of court.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

WHO decides what is "real"???

That's a particularly disturbing question. You'd think basic critical thinking would allow anyone to distinguish between what's real and what's fake but that just doesn't seem to be the case. It's more about your biases and beliefs now.

When that FBI agent that was found dead after investigating HRC this past summer. That wasn't true, but so many people believe that the Clinton's kill their enemies that it was completely real to them.

As far as I know the rule let the buyer beware also covers us being swindled or told lies. It is not illegal to tell a lie except in court under oath. Freedom of speech does not cover slander though. You can be sued for slandering someone if any harm or loss of money occurs from the slander.

I could sell lots on Venus if I wanted to and it would be legal to do so.

a reply to: Advantage

Patience is as well. From my perspective, most people should be given a chance to change, before condemnation to the desolate void.

Humans are also notorious for getting insanely butt hurt for semi valid to entirely non valid reasons.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Perhaps in the future. Some are capable of invasive and pervasive influence/coercion of others, and can and do affect autonomy. So yes, one day there may be laws regarding these things, but it will largely go unheeded and will most likely be repealed. Many will not take kindly to it, those that cannot discipline their own minds or those that hold greatlt negative intention towards others.

Its one thing to regulate and punish actions. Its a whole other ball game when you deal with the mind and its mechinations.

Of course this is just hypothetical and i greatly hope we dont ever come to a society like 1984 with thought crime, doublespeak, etc. But i feel lile i already see those things.

"We interrupt this regularly scheduled programming to bring you this important message from the Ministry of Truth"

Orwell just got a giant knot on his bony skull trying to sit upright in his casket!

One could construct an argument using religion as an example. On one hand you have Christians, and on another you have Muslims. Both faiths believe their creator created everything. One or the other must be lying, right? Or, is it both?

Consequently, I would argue that the 1st Amendment does indeed cover lies, else one or the other (or both) in the above example would be breaking the law. That's roughly half of civilization.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: darkbake

WHO decides what is "real"???

That is a good question... that's what makes this a mess. But the FBI was pressuring Facebook to crack down on the pizzagate thing, so probably Facebook employees. Facebook said in a statement earlier that they were going to start cracking down on it.

News agencies in the mainstream, like Fox and CNN have at least *some* reputation they need to keep, so they don't usually make up news stories, especially ones that slander people, without basis.

Fake news on ATS should be put somewhere like the hoax bin or maybe skunk works. No one in particular determines whether news is fake, what determines whether or not it is fake is, when investigated, do the facts check out? Are there reliable sources, is there reliable evidence? One day, it may be up to YOU to determine what news is fake.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta


Do you really need some law to protect you from critical thinking?

I think some people want protection from the consequences of a vast populous who lacks the critical thinking skills required to differentiate fact from fiction.

Banning fake news is a tricky proposition though.

a reply to: Greggers

A lot of the people who can't tell fact from fiction claim they are using their critical thinking skills when they fall for one of these fake news stories. I don't know what to say, Trump's tweets are false half the time (even Paul Ryan admitted that). It sounds like we are headed towards a world where there is a lot of BS online and in our Facebook news feeds.

Flagging news stories as false after they have been investigated and refuted sounds healthy to me. They could be investigated by a neutral party, and only flagged, not removed.

a reply to: pirhanna

doesnt protect libel, slander or false witness

Sure it does. See American politics.

Remember when the candidates, and ones husband were called rapists without any proof?

Remember when the 'news' release half snipped tax returns of a presidential candidate ?

So far as 'political' speech is protected.

That's why politicians get away with the snip they say.

Does the 1st Amendment protect lies. .

To answer the ops question succinctly. Yes.

Lies are protected.

People need to remember why the first was created in the first place. It was verboten to criticize the crown under fear of death.

It's reason of being was created to protect political speech more than anything.

Rightly or wrongly. The first is a hall pass to say whatever the hell one wants. TRUTH doesn't matter, and that is especially clear in the American political process's.

To quote Tsun Tsu. All warfare is based on deception, and people deception is LYING.

For over two centuries a war has waged. A war of ideology where ANYTHING goes.

Pick any hot button political issue. It's a LIE.