Freedom of speech...

[Scruples]

One problem, as I see it, is that the huge decisions are made by governments. Governments are affected to some degree by popularity and popular opinion. Popular opinion is affected by social media, and most people seem to be poor at assessing the veracity of what they read. So if social media is filled with misinformation driving an agenda, then that will bias popular opinion and ultimately government decision.

And therein lies the problem. The government does, and should, listen to the popular views of the public. But, they should dig into the background behind the popular views to see how valid they are. They should also consider periodic broadcasts to the country to keep the public up to date with their activities; the public lose confidence when they hear about government activiites fron third party sources and some third party sources may put a slant on what information they receive from government.

 

[Scruples]

One problem, as I see it, is that the huge decisions are made by governments. Governments are affected to some degree by popularity and popular opinion. Popular opinion is affected by social media, and most people seem to be poor at assessing the veracity of what they read. So if social media is filled with misinformation driving an agenda, then that will bias popular opinion and ultimately government decision.

And therein lies the problem. The government does, and should, listen to the popular views of the public. But, they should dig into the background behind the popular views to see how valid they are. They should also consider periodic broadcasts to the country to keep the public up to date with their activities; the public lose confidence when they hear about government activiites fron third party sources and some third party sources may put a slant on what information they receive from government.

Not sure I agree - for instance lying and knowing it is likely to cause harm to someone doesn’t feel like it should be classed as free speech that should be protected.

A lot of people do believe that what they say is true and it is what is considered to be the most accepted that decides the truth. If we follow your view, religion would be put down tomorrow.

 

[Chris Puttick]

That's a little simplistic. Galileo was deemed to be a liar by the RC church, and yet...

No, it's not simplistic. Galileo spoke the truth, as supported by the available evidence (as previously shown a couple of thousand years earlier). In this case the church were the ones lying, while Galileo was providing evidence to support the existing published work of Copernicus. Treat "truth" as is in modern science. If you are going to propose something as true, but that opposes or at least questions part of something currently accepted as true, you need to demonstrate *why* your proposition better fits the available evidence (which may, as is common in science, involve some new (verifiable!) evidence that particularly weakens the existing zeitgeist).

 

[Chris Puttick]

And therein lies the problem. The government does, and should, listen to the popular views of the public. But, they should dig into the background behind the popular views to see how valid they are. They should also consider periodic broadcasts to the country to keep the public up to date with their activities; the public lose confidence when they hear about government activiites fron third party sources and some third party sources may put a slant on what information they receive from government.

A lot of people do believe that what they say is true and it is what is considered to be the most accepted that decides the truth. If we follow your view, religion would be put down tomorrow.

Religious people (the real ones, as opposed to, for example, the various claims of belief made by politicians) *believe* what their religion to be truth.

 

[Chris152]

Meanwhile, on FB...

 

[Blackswanwood]

A lot of people do believe that what they say is true and it is what is considered to be the most accepted that decides the truth. If we follow your view, religion would be put down tomorrow.

I think that you are conflating two things and that there is a clear distinction between knowingly expressing something that could cause harm and saying something that you reasonably believe to be the truth.

 

[Scruples]

I think that you are conflating two things and that there is a clear distinction between knowingly expressing something that could cause harm and saying something that you reasonably believe to be the truth.

I see no conflation. I did, however, cite something that was undeniable in the Middle Ages, but is now, more and more, being seen as outdated and superceded by science and education. Was religion guilty of harm, both physical and intellectual? I think we know the answer to that.
I'd be interested if you could identify the two sets of data that I conflated.

 

[Scruples]

Religious people (the real ones, as opposed to, for example, the various claims of belief made by politicians) *believe* what their religion to be truth.

I agree with that. Those beliefs, indoctrinated into the population from an early age made the belief fixed in young minds. Fortunately, those days are gone. We do, however, need to maintain tolerance of modern religion and beliefs for the sake of the ever diminishing parishioners who can't change their beliefs so readily as the younger generations can.

 

[Scruples]

No, it's not simplistic. Galileo spoke the truth, as supported by the available evidence (as previously shown a couple of thousand years earlier). In this case the church were the ones lying, while Galileo was providing evidence to support the existing published work of Copernicus. Treat "truth" as is in modern science. If you are going to propose something as true, but that opposes or at least questions part of something currently accepted as true, you need to demonstrate *why* your proposition better fits the available evidence (which may, as is common in science, involve some new (verifiable!) evidence that particularly weakens the existing zetgeisti).

But the Church was the law in those days. They controlled people's lives, with their own beliefs, for their own ends. That, fortunately, has ended, in the main, in most civilised countries where information is freely available. I'm not sure, aside from history, what you need me to provide to verify that religion controlled the known world in those days. I submit that as education and information is made more readily available, populations have been able to make up their own minds, leaving the church struggling for continued existence.

 

[Chris152]

On lying, I think this is quite a useful summary

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

 

[Scruples]

The problem is not free expression

The problem is that the liars are winning.

We now live in the era of “alternative facts”….and the big question is: “how do we put the genie back in the bottle”

We don't. We have to adapt to seeing/reading all information and, either individually or globally, working out a way to remove the noise. We move on. This problem is more in the hands of the younger generations while we older ones can sit and discuss it all at out keyboards whilst contemplating the past.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

No, it's not simplistic. Galileo spoke the truth, as supported by the available evidence (as previously shown a couple of thousand years earlier). In this case the church were the ones lying, while Galileo was providing evidence to support the existing published work of Copernicus. Treat "truth" as is in modern science. If you are going to propose something as true, but that opposes or at least questions part of something currently accepted as true, you need to demonstrate *why* your proposition better fits the available evidence (which may, as is common in science, involve some new (verifiable!) evidence that particularly weakens the existing zeitgeist).

It's actually even less simplistic.

Galileo was not called a "liar" by the church - he was charged for being a "heretic".


Moreover, the analogy is being used backwards.
In the church versus Galileo case the church is taking the place of the liars, not Galileo. The church used it's influence to indoctrinate the populace and then used it's "enforcement" to torture and murder those that the indoctrination and propaganda could not bring into line. This is far more the part of the disinformation media (eg, MAGA media, and a bunch of UK media and high profile individuals this week), while Galileo is playing the part of the fact checker brings the relevant irrefutable evidence.

 

[sploo]

I think that you are conflating two things and that there is a clear distinction between knowingly expressing something that could cause harm and saying something that you reasonably believe to be the truth.

That's an interesting grey area. For example; I'm pretty certain I recall a lady being prosecuted for posting some false information regarding the recent "Farage Riots" that she claimed she believed to be true. Is ignorance an acceptable defence when you may have incited people to violence? In that instance the law thought not.

 

[Blackswanwood]

That's an interesting grey area. For example; I'm pretty certain I recall a lady being prosecuted for posting some false information regarding the recent "Farage Riots" that she claimed she believed to be true. Is ignorance an acceptable defence when you may have incited people to violence? In that instance the law thought not.

It is - and that (in my opinion) is where the reasonableness test should come in.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

That's an interesting grey area. For example; I'm pretty certain I recall a lady being prosecuted for posting some false information regarding the recent "Farage Riots" that she claimed she believed to be true. Is ignorance an acceptable defence when you may have incited people to violence? In that instance the law thought not.

I don't believe this is real. The prosecutions were for transgressing specific laws (Misuse of Communications Act as well as other Acts). There have categorically not been prosecutions for simple "false information".
While the riots were stoked by misinformation, there was no arrest or prosecution to my knowledge simply about spreading or posting this misinformation.

The offences connected to social media posts involved "using threatening words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred". The operative word here is "intending to". In each case that I'm aware of the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence - and in so doing - they admit that it was their "intent" to either "stir up racial hatred" or "encourage activity which threatened or endangered life"

Here's a link to the Judges closing statements in sentencing in the case of Rex vs Connolly
Lucy Connolly - Intent to encourage activity which endangered life

Ignorance or knowledge that information is false is irrelevant here, since there is no offence about spreading misinformation.

The act of intending to stir racial hatred or intending to incite violence are how offences are measured.
In all cases, proving intent in a courtroom is extremely difficult. However, if the defendant pleads guilty, then the intent is established to be a fact at that point. In each case the defendants were also advised by qualified counsel. The counsel in each case would only have advised them to plead guilty if the evidence was highly likely to point towards and prove beyond doubt, that intent was present. Pleading guilty also gets a discount off the sentence.




(For context I was an Assisting Officer to a defendant in a case of Misuse of Communications Act last year. The case hinged entirely upon the proof of intent. Very well respected counsel didn't advise a guilty plea. However, the defendant was found guilty in court only due to a chain of factors - namely the communication was "grossly offensive; AND intended to cause distress.)

 

[paulrbarnard]

I'd say that with great power comes great responsibility.

But did truth play any part in obtaining that great power. It does look like ‘how loud you shout’ is the significant attribute for gaining power today

 

[Scruples]

It's actually even less simplistic.

Galileo was not called a "liar" by the church - he was charged for being a "heretic".


Moreover, the analogy is being used backwards.
In the church versus Galileo case the church is taking the place of the liars, not Galileo. The church used it's influence to indoctrinate the populace and then used it's "enforcement" to torture and murder those that the indoctrination and propaganda could not bring into line. This is far more the part of the disinformation media (eg, MAGA media, and a bunch of UK media and high profile individuals this week), while Galileo is playing the part of the fact checker brings the relevant irrefutable evidence.

Doe it matter which way around the analogy was used? The results were the same., centuries of church dominance and forced dogma.

 

[sploo]

I don't believe this is real. The prosecutions were for transgressing specific laws (Misuse of Communications Act as well as other Acts). There have categorically not been prosecutions for simple "false information".
While the riots were stoked by misinformation, there was no arrest or prosecution to my knowledge simply about spreading or posting this misinformation.

The offences connected to social media posts involved "using threatening words or behaviour intending to stir up racial hatred". The operative word here is "intending to". In each case that I'm aware of the defendant pleaded guilty to the offence - and in so doing - they admit that it was their "intent" to either "stir up racial hatred" or "encourage activity which threatened or endangered life"

Here's a link to the Judges closing statements in sentencing in the case of Rex vs Connolly
Lucy Connolly - Intent to encourage activity which endangered life

Ignorance or knowledge that information is false is irrelevant here, since there is no offence about spreading misinformation.

The act of intending to stir racial hatred or intending to incite violence are how offences are measured.
In all cases, proving intent in a courtroom is extremely difficult. However, if the defendant pleads guilty, then the intent is established to be a fact at that point. In each case the defendants were also advised by qualified counsel. The counsel in each case would only have advised them to plead guilty if the evidence was highly likely to point towards and prove beyond doubt, that intent was present. Pleading guilty also gets a discount off the sentence.




(For context I was an Assisting Officer to a defendant in a case of Misuse of Communications Act last year. The case hinged entirely upon the proof of intent. Very well respected counsel didn't advise a guilty plea. However, the defendant was found guilty in court only due to a chain of factors - namely the communication was "grossly offensive; AND intended to cause distress.)

Ah right. I must have misremembered the specifics. Was it that she posted inciting material because she (claimed) she incorrectly understood some details about the original attack? Not critical either way I guess.

 

[sploo]

But did truth play any part in obtaining that great power. It does look like ‘how loud you shout’ is the significant attribute for gaining power today

It is. Though it helps if your dad has a large real estate portfolio... or owns an emerald mine... just as a couple of topical examples...

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Ah right. I must have misremembered the specifics. Was it that she posted inciting material because she (claimed) she incorrectly understood some details about the original attack? Not critical either way I guess.

She called for a hotel which housed migrants to be set on fire. It's swear-wordy so here's a link instead of me doing copy paste:
set fire to hotels