As some of the other posters argued, this is a slippery slope to censorship by those in power, which does not allow for dissenting opinions to propogate.
Given that free speech doesn’t mean that anybody needs to listen, I feel that the problem (and solution) lies in the conduit for the free speech. I don’t understand the complexities of the laws but have wondered if adjusting the laws to hold entities accountable for their actions would have a positive effect. For example, an idiot shouting from the town square has a limited audience, but if a newspaper picks up the message and promotes it, aren’t they partially responsible for that message?
It gets tricky with opinion pieces, but we already have an established mechansm with newspapers’ opinion pages. One potential problem is that the current media companies enjoy no accountability, no content creation costs and profits from advertisers.
On that topic, I’d even go so far as to argue that advertisers share in the accountability of providing funds to organizations that support harmful messages.
There’s a lot more to this but would be interesting to see a country who has done it and if it had a net positive effect.
We have truth-in-advertising laws. You can’t make claims about a product that isn’t true.
Politics is just a product, being sold by a candidate. If that candidate lies about the product they “represent,” and the voters rely on those promised lies, the politician should be held responsible for that lie.
For instance, HitlerPig claimed for years that he had a first-rate health care plan that was two weeks away from release. Finally, during his debate with Harris, he admitted that all they had were “concepts” of a plan. Clearly, there was never a plan at all.
Politicians should be held accountable for their deliberate lies.
In practice I agree, but the crime of the left is being correct too early. I feel like that will play to our disadvantage when the media has cemented lies already that we’d be (I think) persecuted for correcting.
As some of the other posters argued, this is a slippery slope to censorship by those in power, which does not allow for dissenting opinions to propogate.
Given that free speech doesn’t mean that anybody needs to listen, I feel that the problem (and solution) lies in the conduit for the free speech. I don’t understand the complexities of the laws but have wondered if adjusting the laws to hold entities accountable for their actions would have a positive effect. For example, an idiot shouting from the town square has a limited audience, but if a newspaper picks up the message and promotes it, aren’t they partially responsible for that message?
It gets tricky with opinion pieces, but we already have an established mechansm with newspapers’ opinion pages. One potential problem is that the current media companies enjoy no accountability, no content creation costs and profits from advertisers.
On that topic, I’d even go so far as to argue that advertisers share in the accountability of providing funds to organizations that support harmful messages.
There’s a lot more to this but would be interesting to see a country who has done it and if it had a net positive effect.
We have truth-in-advertising laws. You can’t make claims about a product that isn’t true.
Politics is just a product, being sold by a candidate. If that candidate lies about the product they “represent,” and the voters rely on those promised lies, the politician should be held responsible for that lie.
For instance, HitlerPig claimed for years that he had a first-rate health care plan that was two weeks away from release. Finally, during his debate with Harris, he admitted that all they had were “concepts” of a plan. Clearly, there was never a plan at all.
Politicians should be held accountable for their deliberate lies.
In practice I agree, but the crime of the left is being correct too early. I feel like that will play to our disadvantage when the media has cemented lies already that we’d be (I think) persecuted for correcting.