Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing 'fake news'-New Proposal To FEC

a reply to: mOjOm

Maybe the solution is to just not have any media at all because people can claim that only so-called conservative press lies, but I seem to recall a number of whoppers on the part of the mainstream press here lately where they've been so eager to run with the daily scandal that they've been caught presenting rumor and hearsay as fact.

So if we disbar conservative press for lying which is mainly usually just presenting a different spin in the facts, then we have to also disbar openly liberal press for the same reasons, and lately, we also have to discount the mainstream press too for not doing their due diligence on the facts and presenting rumor as truth.

Ergo, no media for anyone and none of us should be allowed to know anything about what's going on.

It has nothing to do with "fake news." It's about paid political advertising on the internet.

The proposed regulation would essentially provide parity with TV and radio political ads. You know, the ones that say where the money for the ads comes from? The ones that say "I am Fred, and I approve this message."

Here is what Ravel says about it:

“It’s ridiculous,” said Ann Ravel, a Democrat who served on the election commission from 2013 until this year. “We need to rethink all the exemptions for the internet because even if Facebook might not have known about the Russian advertising, they knew — and we all knew — that this was possible.”

www.nytimes.com...

LOL

We can curtail freedom of speech so long as media outlets aren't being penalized, amirite?

a reply to: ketsuko

Of course you assume that would be what I'm saying. Because you also can't seem to understand the point of not using group labels.

I never suggested anything close to what your saying.

Believe it or not sometimes regardless of whether or not someone is conservative or liberal their actions should represent just them and those who support them and not an entire group of people, including those who are against them.

But as long as it supports the bias against an entire group that is how it will be spoken of. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Ignore the liberals who are against this and focus on the fact that it's a liberal who sponsored it and use it to blame all liberals as if they all agree.

It's that kind of group label demonizing that I'm talking about, not flipping it around. So don't start suggesting I meant anything at all like what you're saying.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: seasonal

Oh yeah. Because as we all know we can always count on the fact that if 1 liberal does something that means it's fair game to apply that to every liberal leaning person on earth and treat them all the same right???

Regardless of how many other liberals might also be against it as well doesn't matter. Just ignore them and keep that generalization going. Make sure you tie Liberal with as many words like communism and fascism etc as you can and just keep that narrative going.

Good form pal. Nothing wrong with that kind of message.

In this case it fits like a liberal glove. I don't like it either.

originally posted by: seasonal

In this case it fits like a liberal glove. I don't like it either.

Oh ok. If you say so. Because your opinion is clearly all that counts after all.

Yet somehow I guess I missed the massive liberal support all praising this idea which must be happening if what you say is true. Funny that something like this with complete and total support from so many liberals all over the country would go unnoticed and only sourced from a tabloid. But you're never wrong so it must be some kind of freak thing I guess.

a reply to: mOjOm

Attack the game, not the player.

a reply to: Phage

Fool Me Once: The Case for Government

Regulation of “Fake News”

Issues and Recommendations Summary

Abby K. Wood, Ann M. Ravel, Irina Dykhne

This is interesting.

Government regulations to help voters avoid spreading disinformation

Educate social media users. Social media users can unintentionally spread disinformation when they interact with it in their newsfeeds. Depending on their security settings, their entire online social network can see items that they interact with (by “liking” or commenting), even if they are expressing their opposition to the content. Social media users should not interact with disinformation in their feeds at all (aside from flagging it for review by third party fact checkers). Government should require platforms to regularly remind social media users about not interacting with disinformation.

Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.


Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options. We think the courts should uphold this as a constitutional regulation of political speech, but we acknowledge that it is a closer question than the more straightforward disclosure regulations above. The most analogous cases are to commercial speech cases (AdChoices and Do Not Call Registry, which was upheld). Commercial speech receives less protection than political speech.

It's deeper than that. Scare people out of free speech by threatening them with liable and "nudging" them to not read something is much, much deeper don't you think?

Once that cat is out of the box, who knows what would be next?

a reply to: seasonal

Ah. I didn't realize you were playing games. Well that explains a lot.

I guess I just don't think with the current level of division happening right now that even more fuel for that fire should be seen as fun and games.

Glad you're still having such a good time with it though.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I can't seem to find this story anywhere that isn't a right wing blog or opinion rag and a copy of the above.
Now why is that I wonder.

Ill leave it up to you all. You're so good at pointing it out continually.

Ill give you a hint it rhymes with Faye Knuse.

Plus it says the liberals want this but what I remember is that it was trump that coined the phrase fake news. And it was trump that wanted to "open up the libel laws".

a reply to: mOjOm

Don't concentrate on little ol me. Look at the situation.

The libs are willing to slap people with libel with no thought that the shoe will be on the other foot sooner or later.

I have nothing to do with the story other than bringing it here. It is not a personal aside to you.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well this means there would have to be certified panels of experts to confirm and prove news stories are real or fake.

What does THAT remind you of ?

That reminded me of the time our chocolate rations went from 3 oz's to 4..........Good times brother 😀

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yeah, I came across that text too.

You know that libel is a civil, not criminal, charge. The government cannot charge anyone with libel so where's the threat? Any person can sue any other person for libel as is (Trump would like to make it easier to win such a suit, actually). A reminder of that might cause someone to thing twice about retweeting just any old thing.

Is that bad? Thinking before tweeting?
www.theguardian.com...
www.hollywoodreporter.com...

But it's not really clear what is meant by "disputed content."

a reply to: Phage

I think you are grasping at straws to defend that to be honest.

Politics aside, if either side suggested whats in that, I'd say the same.

Of course I know libel is civil. It's still a veiled threat and intended to interfere with speech. It's dangerous and a stepping stone to far worse IMO.

a reply to: seasonal

Right. Ya know I seem to remember a current Republican President wanting to something very similar. Something about opening up the libel laws against media.

Remember that?? Funny how you don't bring that up when it's a Republican and a President even.

Nope this must all be a Liberal thing, right. Certainly nobody other than a liberal would ever suggest such a crazy idea as punishing the Media for saying something they don't agree with.

I guess I must just be missing something.

a reply to: Blaine91555

You don't think that political advertising on the internet should be handled like political advertising elsewhere? Because it's special?

It's dangerous and a stepping stone to far worse IMO.

Where do you think that slippery slope might lead? The repeal of the First Amendment?

a reply to: Phage

Politics is speech.

I think it could lead to a slow chipping away at what is and what is not protected speech and over time the First Amendment through legislation and regulation would be no more than window dressing.

Some Rights are so important to freedom that to remain free, we must accept some negatives from it.

As long as all sides have equal opportunity to speak their say, without interference, I think it's best for our future.

One persons truth is another persons "Fake News". It should be up to the reader to decide.

a reply to: mOjOm

Why yes, yes you are.

I guess I must just be missing something.

a reply to: Blaine91555

One persons truth is another mans "Fake News". It should be up to the reader to decide.

You don't think that knowing the source of political advertising might help in making that decision? No accountability is a good thing?
The right of free speech carries no responsibility?

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: mOjOm

Why yes, yes you are.

I guess I must just be missing something.

Chose to avoid addressing the rest of that post I see. Not surprised since the rest of it was what destroyed your little partisan agenda here.

But I guess I can still agree on something. I am missing something. I'm missing where you have enough integrity to admit I'm right about my argument. That's too bad.