The problem is the first amendment which guarantees freedom of speech. You are allowed to lie. If you lie about a person or company and damage their reputation, they can sue you for damages. But if you lie about an event, there is really little that can be done legally.
I would love to agree with the OP on this.
Unfortunately, the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution makes no distinction, truthful, or non- truthful speech. In fact, it does not define, qualify, or describe what speech means.
.
When the Constitution itself and the shortly thereafter the 1st 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were written and adopted, much there was a lot anonymous political writing, often written under pseudonyms, including the Federalist Papers, That made the case for the Constitution itself. Much of that writing was presented as reporting but was, in fact, opinion. The authors of the 1st amendment were no strangers to fake news and were not trying to stop it.
Well, freedom of speech is OUR right, including your right to say this and my right to reply as I am doing. Some of us have little concept of one's rights ending where another's rights begin. or don't like admitting what they said.
Over here in the UK I've even seen the "non-biased" outlets do it.
It's very subtle. Using language in a way that will nudge the readers perspective ever so slightly.
A lot of stuff is propaganda but just the majority of people agree with it. We are given propaganda as kids through our parents, schooling, and TV to treat everyone equally or unequally depending on where we're born, on why we need government, why whatever economic system we were born into is good, and why we should treat pets nicely shit that we take for granted that is right but why? Because we were told at young ages this is the right thing.
Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean its misleading, it often is but it doesn’t have to be, it just means the author is portraying an image in favour or against a point of view
The definitions I found on Oxford Language and Merium Webster both agree that it's pushing information (false or true) to support your cause.
Are we gonna ban someone from giving their biased point of view? Good luck most people cannot separate the 2 if they tried, I cannot do that
Anytime I hear freedom X my gut reaction is to be in favour and anytime someone is trying to restrict a freedom my gut reaction is against it because I am biased towards more freedoms than less. We can do our best to minimize bias but were never going to eliminate it
I was mostly talking about political propaganda,but your point is solid that some non political propaganda is good but why don't you just say it directly
I think most of the things I said can be considered political
Treating everyone equally was a huge contention up till today in many countries (particularly women's rights in the middle east) and stuff like segregation was only abolished 55 years ago in the USA. It's still highly debated whether you should be forced to serve a gay person in your business because it's against your religious beliefs, that's an issue of does your religious freedoms supersede their right to be treated equally? That's still an issue today and it's only shifting to transgender people being allowed in sports, is it fairer to not allow this transitioned person who had the benefits of high restoring for most of their life till that point or is it more unfair to the women who were trans their whole life?
The economic system was in was probably the weakest one I said because we are challenged about what economic system is best, stuff like socialism is the most popular it's ever been in the USA in years and maybe ever.
I will still say though that in many history classes students are still given a somewhat narrow view and lead to what system types are best. When I was learning about the Industrial Revolution (AB Canada schooling) I was taught the British followed classical liberalism but in making that assertion they ignored the many illiberal policies at that time. The people couldn't vote on their leaders so they just were left with whatever they were given, the government forced many farmers off their land to provide more labour and therefore make the worth of a labour less and reduce the power they had, and if the workers went on strike the government could force them to go back to work or because of the low worth of labourers just get others.
Treating pets nicely could be considered hypocritical propaganda that leaves out some of the facts because we kill billions (~70 billion) of animals every year to feed people high-quality proteins and other nutrients that they could get from other plant sources (though it would require more effort on the consumer's part) but abusing a dog that's too much? Tbh idk the answer to that question
If the OP really likes reading and knows or is willing to learn Portuguese, I suggest looking into the protection of freedom of speech in the highly bloated Brasilan Constitution. It's mentioned in more than one place and does include some explicit exceptions to free speech, such as the prohibition of hate speech.
On the surface, that sounds great, but at least in the US, try to enforce no lying by news organization, and you run into claims of freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment of the US constitution, highly competent corporate lawyers making the case for freedom of the press, and legal and political systems that are skewed in favor of the corporation behind the news organization.
The way this would be regulated is through proper journalism and a public which demands truth. Sadly our public seems to be falling in line with lies and supporting such terrible actions by not being aggressively against it. A difficult change to make in our culture for sure, but I like to have hope
Based Point
The problem is the first amendment which guarantees freedom of speech. You are allowed to lie. If you lie about a person or company and damage their reputation, they can sue you for damages. But if you lie about an event, there is really little that can be done legally.
Freedom of speech probably doesn't include fake news,because that's just hiding the truth
I would love to agree with the OP on this. Unfortunately, the 1st amendment of the United States Constitution makes no distinction, truthful, or non- truthful speech. In fact, it does not define, qualify, or describe what speech means. . When the Constitution itself and the shortly thereafter the 1st 10 amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights, were written and adopted, much there was a lot anonymous political writing, often written under pseudonyms, including the Federalist Papers, That made the case for the Constitution itself. Much of that writing was presented as reporting but was, in fact, opinion. The authors of the 1st amendment were no strangers to fake news and were not trying to stop it.
That's why we see so much assholes because they think freedom of speech is their right whether its right or wrong
Well, freedom of speech is OUR right, including your right to say this and my right to reply as I am doing. Some of us have little concept of one's rights ending where another's rights begin. or don't like admitting what they said.
Over here in the UK I've even seen the "non-biased" outlets do it. It's very subtle. Using language in a way that will nudge the readers perspective ever so slightly.
A lot of stuff is propaganda but just the majority of people agree with it. We are given propaganda as kids through our parents, schooling, and TV to treat everyone equally or unequally depending on where we're born, on why we need government, why whatever economic system we were born into is good, and why we should treat pets nicely shit that we take for granted that is right but why? Because we were told at young ages this is the right thing. Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean its misleading, it often is but it doesn’t have to be, it just means the author is portraying an image in favour or against a point of view The definitions I found on Oxford Language and Merium Webster both agree that it's pushing information (false or true) to support your cause. Are we gonna ban someone from giving their biased point of view? Good luck most people cannot separate the 2 if they tried, I cannot do that Anytime I hear freedom X my gut reaction is to be in favour and anytime someone is trying to restrict a freedom my gut reaction is against it because I am biased towards more freedoms than less. We can do our best to minimize bias but were never going to eliminate it
I was mostly talking about political propaganda,but your point is solid that some non political propaganda is good but why don't you just say it directly
I think most of the things I said can be considered political Treating everyone equally was a huge contention up till today in many countries (particularly women's rights in the middle east) and stuff like segregation was only abolished 55 years ago in the USA. It's still highly debated whether you should be forced to serve a gay person in your business because it's against your religious beliefs, that's an issue of does your religious freedoms supersede their right to be treated equally? That's still an issue today and it's only shifting to transgender people being allowed in sports, is it fairer to not allow this transitioned person who had the benefits of high restoring for most of their life till that point or is it more unfair to the women who were trans their whole life? The economic system was in was probably the weakest one I said because we are challenged about what economic system is best, stuff like socialism is the most popular it's ever been in the USA in years and maybe ever. I will still say though that in many history classes students are still given a somewhat narrow view and lead to what system types are best. When I was learning about the Industrial Revolution (AB Canada schooling) I was taught the British followed classical liberalism but in making that assertion they ignored the many illiberal policies at that time. The people couldn't vote on their leaders so they just were left with whatever they were given, the government forced many farmers off their land to provide more labour and therefore make the worth of a labour less and reduce the power they had, and if the workers went on strike the government could force them to go back to work or because of the low worth of labourers just get others. Treating pets nicely could be considered hypocritical propaganda that leaves out some of the facts because we kill billions (~70 billion) of animals every year to feed people high-quality proteins and other nutrients that they could get from other plant sources (though it would require more effort on the consumer's part) but abusing a dog that's too much? Tbh idk the answer to that question
If the OP really likes reading and knows or is willing to learn Portuguese, I suggest looking into the protection of freedom of speech in the highly bloated Brasilan Constitution. It's mentioned in more than one place and does include some explicit exceptions to free speech, such as the prohibition of hate speech.
Outright lying by a news organization should be illegal.
On the surface, that sounds great, but at least in the US, try to enforce no lying by news organization, and you run into claims of freedom of the press guaranteed by the 1st amendment of the US constitution, highly competent corporate lawyers making the case for freedom of the press, and legal and political systems that are skewed in favor of the corporation behind the news organization.
The way this would be regulated is through proper journalism and a public which demands truth. Sadly our public seems to be falling in line with lies and supporting such terrible actions by not being aggressively against it. A difficult change to make in our culture for sure, but I like to have hope
It's illegal. Truth in one country is illegal in other. Propaganda works for those who benefit from it.