You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
3

[–] Phivex 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

In response to that last comment, there are already restrictions to free speech. Plus, that's more in line with "freedom of the press". Where FS is more on in the scope of an individual citizen, FP essentially relates to publishers. It's illegal for citizens to yell "fire". IIRC, the reasoning is to maintain the severity of the word, as well prevent mass riot and panic. It seems reasonable the same should be applied to FP when evidence proves the intentional misleading of the masses.

The issue is, that's something that could, ironically enough, be easily used as a weapon to silence truth as it's dynamic in its application. Not being allowed to yell "fire" is static. It's precise and leaves no room for misinterpretation or weaponization. Dynamically applicable laws do, though. There's ultimately nothing wrong with simply starting a conversation and asking the question of whether or not something is reasonable. It's the implementation thereof that truly matters.

It could easily be something that sounds good on paper, but will never work due to human nature, which is where I currently lie on the matter. An example of how I see it playing out is if it were currently in place, then it would be used to shutdown those speaking truths about the holocaust. Similar thing happened in that trial in Germany with some guy years ago where the judge said something to the extent of "Everyone knows it happened" and then just dismissed the case or whatever without any evidence. The upside is it could potentially be used to redpill people on topics the media is discussing, but seeing as the media would need to report it in the first place, it wouldn't happen often. Yeah, I feel as if significantly more bad than good would come from trying to implement something like that.