A (not so) Modest Proposal...

[kengr]

Over in mikkop's LJ the other day he noted that the folks pushing "Intelligent Design will admit that they've got facts wrong on one day, and then the next push the same lies the next day.

This crystallized an idea that had been floating in my head for a long time.

Consider a law (possibly modeled after some aspects of both libel/slander laws, "inciting to riot" laws, and other laws) that makes it a crime to knowingly spread false information. Or to present true information in a manner that leads people to draw incorrect conclusions.

It'd probably need to be scaled with different degrees of seriousness for private situations, "public figures" and "attempts to affect public policy".

It would most definitely *not* have exemptions for "freedom of the press".

One of the main justifications would be that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are set forth to allow discussion and debate of ideas. But debate *cannot* work, nor can valid decisions be made if false data is being fed in.

This would have "interesting" effects" on news coverage of politics, on editorials, and on even advertising.

No doubt it could be abused (show me a law that *can't* be abused), but the picture of some talking head, or fundie shill getting arrested for lying to the public is very tempting.

Comments

[siegeengine.livejournal.com]

amen amen!! I've thought for a long time that politicians, and representatives of politicians, should be sworn in before holding press conferences or speaking to Congress... things like that. They lie through their teeth, knowingly, otherwise! that is to say.. all the time!

It's not right that people who represent this country and our government should be allowed to blamelessly lie blatantly to the people themselves.

Also, yeah, advertisers, and people making public statements, and the news!!!

[st-andrews-girl.livejournal.com]

The key problem word with your proposal that I see is the word "knowingly." This opens up 2 loopholes that extend both ways. How do you determine "knowingly?" Someone could genuinely misunderstand, be mislead, or just be dumb, and spread information, so how do you determine that it was not intentional on their part? And as for the real criminals, the intentional misleaders, all they have to do is claim they are part of the previously mentioned group. This creates a cycle (which we're already seeing, but this would codify it) of the misleaders whispering misinformation into the ears of the ignorant and having them step forward as the mouthpiece.
(BTW, icon is directed at people who intentionally spread misinformation, not you)

[kengr]

Thing is, for many situations, these folks get the facts pointed out to them. And admit they were wrong.

With a law like this, that would mean that they would be liable the *next* time.

And for those that refuse to accept some things, we'd likely have to alter it to "contrary to facts".

[st-andrews-girl.livejournal.com]

What I'm saying is that this idea for a law is very broad, and would impact far more than IDers who turn a blind eye to information.
Also, their argument has *always* been that what we call facts can be manipulated (which is unfortunately true in some cases, just not this one), and what they are presenting is "fact." So, depending on who is enforcing this law, teaching evolution when someone has informed you of ID could be considered a crime. You would first have to legally declare "facts," which gets into another sticky mess.

[rowanyote.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately the definition of truth comes in. There are people who consider it a "TRUTH" that the earth is only 5000 something years old and would want this law applied to anyone mentioning evolution....

[kengr]

So make it spreading "contrary to facts".

They can say "the Bible says X". They can't say "the Bible is right and science is wrong".

[st-andrews-girl.livejournal.com]

Wow, that gets into a sticky mess. That delves into thought-control, trying to control what people believe. There are people who truly believe that the Bible is fact. Is it a crime for them to believe that, and to tell others that?
Yes, they are going to present it as fact. And you know what, science has done the same thing. Look into eugenics if you want an example of well-respected scientists claiming something as fact, truly believing it, and not only was it false, but deeply, deeply harmful.
There's a good chance that the people you're citing who have received information, declared themselves wrong, and then gone back to their viewpoint the next day, truly believe what they are saying. They are able to take the information in, but when faced with a choice between fact and faith, they choose faith. Most humans end up making that choice at some point or another. We may not like the choice they end up making, but it is theirs to make.

[kengr]

Sorry, but it's not thought control. The Bible is not fact. There's *no* reasonable definition of "fact" that will encompass things like creation.

Faith is all well and good. But trying to sell something that's based on faith as being factual is bad.

And no. These folks are almost certainly *not* folks who believe what they are spreading.

At *best* they feel that it is ok the lie to spread a "higher truth". More often they are in it for power and control.

[st-andrews-girl.livejournal.com]

To a religious person, their religion *is* fact. I'm sorry, that's what faith means. Already, your idea requires you to define "fact" based on your own set of beliefs. You don't believe the Bible is fact (I happen to agree with you), so it does not fall under your cloud of fact.
It's all well and good when the people who agree with us are the ones defining "facts," but let's be realistic, that's not likely to happen.

[kengr]

Facts can be tested and crosschecked. The Bible can't.
No evidence, no facts.

[st-andrews-girl.livejournal.com]

Try explaining that to someone who hasn't had the kind of education we have. For them, the law of gravity, the concept of other planets, anything intangible are as much a leap of faith as the Bible. It's just words on a page to them.

[st-andrews-girl.livejournal.com]

w00t, I just made that point, having not seen your reply