|
Keeshhound posted:Well, the first amendment, for one. There are plenty of examples of that not being a factor for example: 
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Goddamn It's kind of strangely satisfying to see a left-wing tabloid. Especially with current tabloids literally saying that Obama knew about Paris and handed control to Putin out of cowardice. I mean, that is a nice break from every President constantly being on the brink of divorce, I guess, but it would be nice if these fuckers admitted that their President is a stone - cold badass who riffed on their current toupeed idol while ordering a strike on someone they'd worship anyone else as an incarnate god for killing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:There are plenty of examples of that not being a factor for example: Then please, give me an example of how you want to enshrine hate speech into law so that it can be legally punished.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Then please, give me an example of how you want to enshrine hate speech into law so that it can be legally punished. I have no idea how to phrase this but, why don't we start with something that already exists like the UK's hate speech laws from public order 1986 section 18: "A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby." Modify that to whatever we need to fit for the US. E: I forgot the punished part. Scale the fine based on the individuals net income and for corporations make it be X% of gross profit for Y years. Azuth0667 fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Then please, give me an example of how you want to enshrine hate speech into law so that it can be legally punished. You do realize most first world countries have these kinds of laws right? It isn't some magical turning point that's impossible to enact without eroding our very liberties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Goddamn  Tell us how you really feel, Daily News
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Even ignoring first amendment concerns, there's also the fact that the "if they lie, make them spend advertisement slots to correct it" part it would be completely infeasible to implement and enforce. For one, how would you avoid partisanship in whatever organization was given the task of identifying lies? Would there be an appeals process? If not, what if the organization is just wrong and something isn't actually false? If so, how would it work in such a way that organizations couldn't just drag through things on technicalities and semantics until the correction was to something that no one cares about anymore? What is the degree to which something would be judged? If someone said that a public official was, say, 72 instead of 62, would that be a lie that would force the loss of multiple advertising slots on assuring a correction? How do you even begin to develop an objective standard for something like this? And how are you going to make sure people actually pay attention to it? Especially considering that studies have shown that once a person hears false information later corrections are more likely to not be registered or outright ignored in the mind in favor of the original fact. Would the same punishments be enforced for something that legitimately is likely an error? If so, how would that not just disincentivize any sort of news broadcast given the fact that you're holding everyone to a "get it perfect or face heavy punishment" standard? If not, how could you determine intent for something minor or nonobvious without a prolonged investigation? And if you only investigate big things, what's to prevent a company from just going more subtle?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:You do realize most first world countries have these kinds of laws right? It isn't some magical turning point that's impossible to enact without eroding our very liberties. And in the US, those laws have fared almost universally poorly when challenged in the Supreme Court. Azuth0667 posted:I have no idea how to phrase this but, why don't we start with something that already exists like the UK's hate speech laws from public order 1986 section 18: This is really hard to prove, especially in the context of the media. quote:(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby." And this is so vague as to be useless. How do you prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Aryan News Network knew that their article 10 Reasons Why The Jew Living Next To You Is Plotting Your Downfall? would cause Jimbob to shoot up a synagogue? What if ANN is a satirical publication and an idiot racist just took it seriously. Are they liable for that? And it's even worse in the age of the internet. If I run a blog and post a hate screed meant for my followers, but it goes viral and someone who lives on the opposite coast from me reads it and it inspires them to go on a rampage, does that count? What if it's satirical? What about news organizations that repost it as part of their reporting of it going viral? And again, even if you navigate all of those problems, SCOTUS has a history of bringing the hammer down on these laws the moment they get challenged. Sure, any part of the constitution might be one SCOTUS ruling away from being changed or rejected, but historically they've been overwhelmingly supportive of a liberal interpretation of the first amendment, especially in the context of hate speech laws. Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:You do realize most first world countries have these kinds of laws right? It isn't some magical turning point that's impossible to enact without eroding our very liberties. As an example, here's a part of Germany's §130 StGB against incitement of the people: quote:(1) Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace To my admittedly limited understanding, a key point here is actually the very first sentence "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace". So it's not just a matter of the content of the speech, but rather whether it is capable of disturbing the public peace or inciting further action.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, is there legislation which requires that print newspapers issue corrections on factual errors, or is that simply something they do because they want to be, well, factual?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Out of curiosity, is there legislation which requires that print newspapers issue corrections on factual errors, or is that simply something they do because they want to be, well, factual? Most of the laws for newspapers are in regards to advertising, privacy and political advocacy. It's pretty much all self-policing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Out of curiosity, is there legislation which requires that print newspapers issue corrections on factual errors, or is that simply something they do because they want to be, well, factual? The latter. It's a combination of that and also if you're getting emails and phone calls screaming at you, you want that to stop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
big mean giraffe posted:You do realize most first world countries have these kinds of laws right? It isn't some magical turning point that's impossible to enact without eroding our very liberties. Restricting political speech is the definition of eroded liberty. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:23
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
big mean giraffe posted:You do realize most first world countries have these kinds of laws right? It isn't some magical turning point that's impossible to enact without eroding our very liberties. Holocaust denial laws were recently used as a cudgel to prosecute Muslims in France. The funny part was that it came right after that "March for Freedom of Expression" for the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Of course, they'll use other means to demonstrate that double standard too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Holocaust denial laws were recently used as a cudgel to prosecute Muslims in France. The funny part was that it came right after that "March for Freedom of Expression" for the Charlie Hebdo attacks. This is exactly the poo poo I'm talking about. You can't word a hate speech law vaguely enough to catch the bastards without making it expansive enough that it can be used to hurt people you just disagree with. Edit: An excerpt: quote:In the northern city of Lille, authorities suspended three school workers for allegedly refusing to observe a moment of silence in honor of the victims of the attacks, and then justifying their action. One is being charged with “defending terrorism.” The accused denies that he refused to respect the minute of silence, but said he did “debate it with colleagues outside work hours.” "Honoring the people we want you to honor is MANDATORY! If you don't display the proper amount of reverence, you're a TERRORIST!" Keeshhound fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Goddamn Please tell me I wasn't the only one who thought the 2nd picture was Jeb at first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Yep
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
So earlier today MSNBC rifled through the shooters' house. Live on air. They showed someone's (I think his mom's?) SSN card, unblurred, and spent a good amount of time pointing out the children's Quran in the closet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:So earlier today MSNBC rifled through the shooters' house. Live on air. They showed someone's (I think his mom's?) SSN card, unblurred, and spent a good amount of time pointing out the children's Quran in the closet. There were also FBI forms still in the house. Sounds like it wasn't cleared for the media to stomp around in yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:So earlier today MSNBC rifled through the shooters' house. Live on air. They showed someone's (I think his mom's?) SSN card, unblurred, and spent a good amount of time pointing out the children's Quran in the closet. From what I saw (On a short break from working) the FBI cleared the house but the police haven't had a chance to investigate it yet. Is that right or am I misinformed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
No matter what the technicalities are its extremely weird and a clear sign of how broadly and quickly we suspend all rational thought when it comes to TRUE SWARTHY TERRORISM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
MSNBC, CNN, and Fox had crews inside the shooters' house, but I liked Fox's labeling of their coverage the best: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:That's the show on PBS that I'm always amazed is still going and hasn't changed a bit in decades. It's so nice that they give Buchanan a place to run his mouth . The next man on the moon will be Chinese! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KMV3dc2PbI
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
I honestly cannot tell if this person is serious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:I honestly cannot tell if this person is serious. Irishmen: the original swarthy foreigner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Obama can't even get politicians to keep known terrorists from buying guns, yet he is all powerful when it comes to covering up the evidence of said terrorists using those guns. 20 children get massacred and Obama can't even get background checks on gun purchases, but he competently staged the entire Sandy Hook shooting with perfect crisis actors who have never broken their silence. People are weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
William Bear posted:MSNBC, CNN, and Fox had crews inside the shooters' house, but I liked Fox's labeling of their coverage the best: I'm pretty sure I went there for Halloween.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
If you got this from the same account I saw, its incomplete without the commentary: "those are kiwis, take a deep breath"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Was this deleted? Don't see it on their twitter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
It's a 'shop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I mean, regardless of how much I agree with it, that terrorism headline is gonna result in a lawsuit from Lapierre,yes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:The biggest problem is these broadcasters spreading lies or hatred right? This is a bridge too far, a tad ridiculous and, as others have pointed out, a clear violation of the 1st amendment. But I could behind something that labels and separates "news" from "opinion", similar to the way that magazines are made to label advertisements that are designed to look like articles. But basically, the argument you're positing is pretty short sighted and a tad ignorant. People like Ice-T, NWA and Larry Flynt would be in jail based on your idea, going back to the 90's. Probably Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, Bill Maher...a whole lot of people would be subject to prosecution under this nebulous umbrella that you're suggesting. To start with: define "hate speech". Then explain how satire is different. What happens when you report a "lie" but you've sourced it? Does the person who wrote the lie that was sourced get prosecuted? This is a pretty bad idea you've got here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Can we just give politifact the ability to levy fines?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:Can we just give politifact the ability to levy fines? The same website that called democrats liars for saying Paul Ryan was going to end medicare just he wanted to change it to a block grant system instead of a defined benefit program? But it was still called medicare, so obviously that was a lie. No politifact still has plenty of problems, even if it's still better than most.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
I think the issue is that as the media landscape has changed, content producers have been scrambling to find business models to sustain themselves. Right wing media has found a strong niche by creating a narrative that causes brand loyalty, and have found a group of advertisers that like that same demographic. Many other outlets have seen the success of Fox et al and have tried to imitate then without understanding why Fox's model works, and we see the race to the bottom in terms of sensationalism and pandering to the audience because these networks are struggling to stay alive and the RWM model seems to be the best way to keep limping along. Our media landscape is changing faster than the news institutions can adapt and here we are. I don't know if it would actually work, but I imagine that strong public funding for newsrooms that extends down to the local level wouldn't hurt. Not necessarily a BBC style network, but maybe some kind of grant system to support local and state investigative work? It's a mess and I don't even know if there is an answer, but I do think that the decay of strong local and state level journalism has to play a role in how our electorate has changed. I do think the total focus on national news has warped political discourse in a way that encourages gridlock and polarization. Anyone have recommendations for research on things like this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
I didn't see this in here yesterday, but from YOSPOS:H.P. Hovercraft posted:can't flim flam the zim zam Source: https://twitter.com/therealgeorgez
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
It'll never make up for him stalking and murdering a child for no reason but I'm glad life keeps making GBS threads on him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Just can't muster a lot of sympathy for anyone who would associate with that piece of poo poo, much less date him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:02 |
|
|
beatlegs posted:Just can't muster a lot of sympathy for anyone who would associate with that piece of poo poo, much less date him. I was going to argue that it was possible that she was simply ignorant of who he was but that goes out the window with someone as narcissistic and brash as him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:27
|
|
