A Law Against Lying on the News: Why Canada has one and the U.S. doesn’t

[marmar]

from YES! Magazine:




A Law Against Lying on the News
Why Canada has one and the U.S. doesn’t.

by Dave Saldana
posted Mar 17, 2011


It’s not often that goings-on in Canada interest the American news media, but a rather small decision by a relatively small government agency—the decision not to revoke a rule that bans lying on broadcast news—in Ottawa has made a pretty big splash.

It stems from the planned April launch of Sun TV, a Canadian analog to FOX News—i.e., a broadcast news outlet with a decidedly conservative perspective. Among its top executives is a former communications director to conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, evoking former Reagan/Bush adviser Roger Ailes’ role at the helm of FOX. That executive, Kory Teneycke, told the Toronto Star that Sun TV is “taking on the mainstream media (...) smug, condescending, often irrelevant journalism, we’re taking on political correctness (...) by bureaucrats for elites and paid for by taxpayers.”

Given that the posture, tone, language, and buzzwords of the nascent network could have come so easily from Bill O’Reilly, outsiders promptly branded it “FOX News North.”

The launch drew attention to a seldom-scrutinized regulatory agency called the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), similar to the Federal Communications Commission in the United States. .............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/a-law-against-lying-on-the-news

[speltwon]

1. Among other things, Canada has significantly less freedom of speech than we do

The general philosopy behind our laws, or lack thereof, is that speech is presumed legal, even if grossly offensive, bogus, etc. and it's up to the restricter to overcome a very high burden in order to ban, criminalize it, etc.

Canada has all sorts of speech restrictions that would never fly here. Hate speech laws, etc. That's a tradeoff. It's seen as a tradeoff as less freedom, but more civility. That's how it was justified in parliament.

[angstlessk]

2. I belive if a person wants to spew lies all day long on a podium wherever

is fine...BUT TO CLAIM IT IS NEWS AND IS A LIE..IS JUST LIKE CRYING FIRE IN A THEATER...it incites people when lies are used as political tools

[speltwon]

3. It's nothing like

FALSELY crying fire in a theater, but this is the "go to meme" for any such claim about speech restrictions. The fire/false/theater decision was used as a justification to prosecute a WAR PROTESTER (most people don't realize this) because his protest of a war was viewed as analogous to falsely crying fire in a crowded theater. Oh, the irony. Anyway, that case is not even the current law of the land. Brandenburg is. The restriction under Brandenburg is very narrow. Regardless, the reason why FALSELY and knowingly falsely I might add, crying fire in a crowded theater is illegal is that it creates an imminent risk of stampede and death, and fwiw, at the time this decision was made there had been several quite nasty mass deaths associated with theater fires.

Lying in the news is in no way analogous to that situation. Lots of stuff, like general advocacy of violence IS legal in our country, but not other countries, countries that also criminalize holocaust denial, vilification of religion, racial hatred speech, etc. Certainly, the Nazis being able to march in a city is dangerous, but allowed speech. Advocating violence is dangerous too. But allowed here, etc.

[The Magistrate]

9. The Root Of The Position, Sir, Is This, And There Is Some Soundness To the View

The point of 'free speech' under the First Amendment is the proposition that from the clash of freely expressed views on a subject, there will emerge the truth of the matter, to command the allegiance of most, and serve as a basis for any necessary action. The regulation, or lack thereof, is conceived as a means of discovering the truth; it is not an end in itself. A person who deliberately lies is not a particpant in an endeavor to discover the truth. A person who is mistaken can be engaged in a search for the truth, but a person who knowingly lies is not, and cannot be, engaged in seeking the truth of a situation they are telling lies about. A liar seeks to prevent the truth from being perceived, by definition. Thus a liar has no part in, and can have no part in, the process which the First Amendment seeks to foster.

[speltwon]

10. I strongly disagree with your conclusion, sir

It is up to, in a nation where the PEOPLE are the "decider", to make the determination of who is, and isn't the liar, what his motivations, are, etc. If the govt. can decide "you are a liar. You can't express your viewpoint of what the facts are, because we THE GOVERNMENT have determined you to be a liar", then power is taken away from the people.

The idea that the govt. is that decider, and that they can use prior restraint to choose who does and doesn't get to voice this stuff is odious to me. I refuse to cede such power to the govt., and fortunately, in my great country, I don't have to .

As a citizen, not a subject my govt. gives me great respect - even the right to carry a firearm (many countries would never allow that), spew the most offensive speech that would be criminalized in many countries, etc.

If I slander or defame somebody, they have the right, as the injured party to take that case to court and let the finder of fact determine the validity of the claim.

But there will be no prior restraint.

What your analysis fails to acknowledge is that in your conclusion, you rest WITH GOVERNMENT the POWER to make the determination of whose speech, whose ideas make the grade so to speak, and censor the ones that don't.

I refuse to cede to such govt. authority. Thankfully, I do not have to

[The Magistrate]

15. You Consider A Person Deliberately Telling Lies To Be Part Of An Honest Inquiry After Truth, Sir?

You seem to have fallen into the common trap of imagining there are no such things as facts. Whether someone is or is not telling lies is not a matter that is put to a vote. To take a few points of poison in modern political discourse for example: a person who states President Obama was not born in the United States is telling a lie; a person who states President Obama is a Moslem is telling a lie; a person who states Acorn stole the 2008 election for President Obama is telling a lie. These are not questions of opinion; they are questions of fact, well established as such. Persons who trot these things out have absolutely no interest in the truth of things, nor do they have any interest civil governance: they wish in fact to subvert and destroy democratic governance in the United States. That, too, is not an opinion; it is an established fact.

Sooner or later, this sort of thing is going to have to be dealt with in our political life. A sizeable faction determined to act against honest democracy will sooner or later render its practice impossible. Gresham's Law does not just apply to money, it works in mass discourse as well, whether artitistic or political.

[speltwon]

16. No, I consider it part of the discourse that is part of free speech

Free speech does not imply that the govt. has the right to limit the discourse to only those that it deems are worthy speakers by its metric of who is or isn't truthful. There absolutely is objective truth. Nobody except moronic postmodernist wankers denies that. What I am saying is that in my country, the govt. does not get the power to decide who are the truth tellers and who aren't, and the limit the latter from a mode of discourse. And even a cursory study of our history shows plenty of times in the past (see Muckrakers etc.) when we had some very sketchy "news" in the mass consumption vat.

Let me give you the most basic example. I have relatives who died in the Holocaust. I fucking hate Nazis with every fiber of my soul. However, I recognize that my nation DOES NOT CRIMINALIZE the basest of lies, Holocaust denial. And I WANT it that way. Let the liars out themselves by their lies, let not govt. protect us from them. When you make them hide away and censor them you in a sense make martyrs out of them - much like many of the conspiracy theorists in general - "hey, I'm telling the truth here. It's so scary and dangerous that govt. is CENSORING me. I *MUST* be on to something"

Either you trust the PEOPLE or you don't. I do. I will not cede the power to govt. to exercise prior restraint and protect me from what it deems to be lies. If you want to cede that power to govt, then work to change the 1st amendment. I'll oppose you of course :)

[angstlessk]

17. There absolutely is objective truth....

DEFINE OBJECTIVE TRUTH...AS YOU SEE IT...IN WORDS THAT MAKE SENSE...NOT NONSENSE

[speltwon]

19. Yes, there absolutey is objective truth

How well I can discern what is or isn't, is another matter entirely. I'm not going to start wanking on quantum physics, metaphysics, etc. but suffice it to say that I believe at this moment in time, my hands are depressing keys on a keyboard. Now I could go back to philo 101 and say "well maybe i'm just a brain in a vat and evil geniuses have created a reality (a la the matrix) where I only think that's true" and you know what? It is POSSIBLE. However, that just reflects on my ability to discern objective truth, NOT it's existence itself. Call it a priori belief if you want. Don't really care.

[The Magistrate]

27. Again, Sir, You Do Not Engage In Argument, Rather You Indulge In Polemic

You were given two connected propositions, that the purpose behind the First Amendment was to find a way to the truth of public matters, and that persons who deliberately lie about facts cannot be engaged in a search for the truth. You have not engaged either, you have simply made a confession of faith, a credal statement, that government retriction of speech is bad. In doing this, you have made no attempt to balance degrees of 'badness' (for obviously there are some governmental restrictions on even political speech, and most account them necessary or good), and demonstrate that freely lying causes less harm than government restriction. nor have you made any acknowledgement of a variety of private restraints on political speech, which can amount to extensive programs of censorship of ideas, quite the match of government restrictions in their ability to enforce limits of expression on a wide scale. You close by claiming some ultmate victime status, in order to strike a posture of extreme forbearance with wrong, which simply causes me to smile at such clumsiness in attempting emotional manipulation.

"Even in child-beating, there is the gentleman's way and the cad's way."

[speltwon]

30. No, I engage in a respect for people and their right to choice and exposure

over the authority of govt. to limit same. We have never had a more "democratized" media in the history fo the world. We have the internet, cable, etc. I can go directly to the press release website for North Korea in a click. I can read newspapers from France (I speak French), the UK, etc. I can get Al Jazeera etc.

Govt is specifically restrained from censoring. Private restraints are legion. If I own a bookstore, I don't have to carry Holocaust denial literature. However, the govt. can't tell any bookstore they can't carry it, and can't prohibit it being published. Do you get the distinction? It's about locus of control.

Ultimately, SOMEBODY has to be that decider. Do I rest the ultimate power with the people to make their own choices, or with govt. to limit those choices? My answer is clear.

I am not a victim. I am the exact opposite. A proud citizen in a country that respects my right to discern truth from falsity from whatever sources I can access, and does not exercise prior restraint.

Govt. enforces their restrictions via the barrel of a gun. Now, we could probably both agree that the near monopolistic ownership etc. consolidation that occurred under Bushco (Clear Channel etc.) is contrary to justice and free speech. THAT is a seperate issue, though

[The Magistrate]

33. You Will have To Hold Up Your Own End, Sir, If You Expect To Hold My Interest Further....

[speltwon]

39. Sir, I believe I have but we can agree to disagree nt

[The Magistrate]

41. And That, Sir, Is The Difference Between Opinion And Fact...

[speltwon]

43. Thankfully, the govt. is not the grand determiner of it, and neither are you ;p nt

[The Magistrate]

46. "I'm Going Home, Someone Get Me Some Frogs And Some Bourbon."

[speltwon]

47. "screw you guys, I'm going home"

[AllyCat]

83. Actually, it is. it is just like calling fire in a theater. Look at all the violence

that has ensued after listening to the RW noise machine day-in, day out, ad nauseum. If they are going to call it NEWS, there must be some effort to provide verifiable FACT. For example, putting D after the name of every Republican perp is LYING. It is not NEWS. It is entertainment, and $hitty entertainment at that.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

4. To ruin people's lives with LIES and even send them to an early

grave due to the stress and adverse effects of these lies (like the media does to celebrities) ought to IMO be illegal. They are assassins that use lies, innuendo, salacious sensationalism to garner ratings and sales for their rags and their programs. Makes them a lot of money. Ruins if not ends people's lives who are subject to (or of) it. You think that's OK? That is not freedom of speech. That modern-day lynching. It's assassination with words and propaganda instead of a gun.

I think freedom of speech ought to have some limits - if not for individuals - at least for the powerful media. Along with the tremendous power they have to shape public opinion for or against a concept, person, group, etc. ought to come a GREAT DEAL of responsibility and that responsibility ought to be enforced ie: media integrity laws.

Freedom of speech should NOT apply to big corporate media.

[speltwon]

11. Except that's a fantasy

There is redress for slander, libel, etc. but that power rests with the person libeled. We do not cede the power to government to use prior restraint. We rest greater power with the citizenry to ferret out what is reasonable, what is folly, what is truth, and what is false.

We do not cede the power to govt. to do so.

[angstlessk]

18. IS THAT YOU O'KEEF?

[speltwon]

21. Is that you George W Bush?

and noted also that the chicanery of people like Okeefe shouldn't cause us to throw away the constitutional protections we hold dear, anymore than you Mr. Bush thought that 9/11 justifies gutting the constitution?

Yes, two can play that game...

[deaniac21]

5. Well, perhaps you can lead a movement to amend the 1st

Admendment.

[BR_Parkway]

63. It seems we also have "truth in advertising" laws that should be adhered to

as well. If I advertise margerine as "real butter", some attorney general is going to come after me, possibly indict me for fraud but certainly fine me since I'm presumably profiting from lying to the public. How much does FAUX newz generate in advertising revenue again?

[MedicalAdmin]

7. Re: Canada has significantly less freedom of speech than we do

Bwahahahahahaha. LOL. Name a single Canadian law that lows for one of it's citizens to be held without charge and tortured for something they said.

Two word refutation: patriot act.

[Ohio Joe]

20. Thats some big old bullshit

Should people also be allowed to sell snake oil and call it medicine?

I'll give you a hint... Fuck no.

If they want to call it news, it should have to be true. That is not a restriction of free speech in any way, shape or form.

[speltwon]

23. Fortunately, we have a 1st amendment

that doesn't allow the govt. to be the "decider" of what is or isn't true such that it can exercise prior restraint. If you want a GWB'esque administration deciding which news is real and which isn't, knock yourself out. I prefer to let the power rest with the people.

[Ohio Joe]

25. More bullshit and insinuations of DU'ers being bush supporters

You should not that, you don't see me trying to insinuate anything by your support of faux lies, keep it to the facts and stop the insinuations.

Your bullshit that facts are in the eye of the beholder is false. Facts are facts, truth is truth and to allow "news" to blatantly broadcast lies as news is a stupid ass idea. The President does not decide truth, nor does any administration and the first amendment has nothing to do with this.

[speltwon]

26. You got it exactly 180 degrees backwards

I am not at all saying that. What I am saying is that whatever power you cede to govt. can be used later by OTHER administrations, such as a GWB type admin. That's the point. Just like Obama now is using power that the republicans ceded to Bush. Get it?

Power should rest with the people in this case. We are the ones engaged in public discourse, not the govt. They should stay the fuck out of trying to control the content of the news.

[Ohio Joe]

28. No, it is you that has it ass back-wards

News is a product, it is sold, you pay for it. We allow for truth in the contents of other products, do we not? I'll ask again, is it ok to sell snake oil as medicine? The entire concept of wanting to allow something called "news" to be a lie is simply stupid. To enforce that "news" is true cedes nothing to the government or any administration, it takes no power away from the people rather it insures they get what is advertised. Get it?

[speltwon]

32. Actually no. Advertisers pay for it,.

And the people have a lot of power to pressure same not to support irresponsible journalism a la Beck. Furthermore, I can choose what media to watch or ignore. Media I ignore gets NOTHING from me. I don't pay for it. To analogize speech to medicine is obscene. If I take an unsafe medicine, etc. or substitute snake oil for real medicine I can die. Oftentimes, near instantly. If I consume some fucked up media, I can change the channel. You are patronizing people and saying that if they god forbid happen to see some bogus media "news" show that they don't have the power to ignore it, turn the channel, etc.

Furthermore, if I take bad medicine, there is often no cure. If I take bad media, it is up to good media, good speech to counteract it. That's how a marketplace of ideas works.

We are not supposed to have a free marketplace of medicine. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it would be asinine. Medicine, and etc. are strictly regulted by govt. As it should be. Speech is not analogous.

[Ohio Joe]

34. "News" is not speech

News is a product, it is a reporting of facts. It is not opinion, it is not something that falls under free speech. Which part of that are you not understanding?

[speltwon]

38. fortunately, under our constitution and system of govt., that is laughable...

Try telling that to Woodward or Bernstein...

"NEWS is not speech". That is an erroneous statement for the ages ... "your honor, First Amendment protections don't apply to this journalist. You see, NEWS is not free speech!"

Lol

[jacquelope]

31. Selling lies as news is called fraud. We do prosecute fraud, right?

Or do we?

[speltwon]

35. Again, since you don't seem to be getting this

Even criminal fraud statutes do not allow for prior restraint. This kind of speech restriction does. If you 'buy' some fraudulent news, CHANGE THE FUCKING channel. If you buy a fraudulent product, you are out your money permanently.

It's really a specious analogy. Just as bad as the medicine one. The whole point of free speech is the end consumer is supposed to be the judge of validity. NOT the govt. It is markedly different from a product like a new roof that you purchase.

We also strongly regulate, in that instance, general contractors. We don't do so with journalists. For good reason.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HEyHEY]

45. You clearly know nothing of Canadian law, I would shut up

We have the "right to free expression" in Canada written into the charter and rights and freedoms, part of the Canadian constitution.

[speltwon]

49. Except that alleged right is clearly limited by any # of laws

I suggest you compare CCLA to the ACLU and note the speech restrictions the former acknowledges. I had the unique experience of taking hate crimes investigator training with both US and Canadian cops (mostly RCMP) at a train the trainer level. So, if there is one aspect of comparative law I know it is speech law. I admittedly know very little about Canadian search and seizure law, although I did get to do a couple of ride-a-longs with RCMP and also Vancouver police.

[HEyHEY]

51. If you abuse that right to inflict harm upon a particular person or group of people, yes

[speltwon]

52. Except no harm need be proven

under the law. Not to mention that the "nanny nanny boo boo " theory of speech law doesn't do a lot for me. Your laws criminalize hate speech. It's that simple.

The thing that was funny about the class was all the RCMP guys were amazed at the amount of stuff in regards to speech that the Americans could get away with and the police couldn't do anything...

The Americans were amazed at how much power the Canadian authorities had to regulate and punish offensive speech.

I still love me some RCMP's!

[HEyHEY]

53. It's considered hate speech if it could end up causing harm to a group of people

Nothing wrong with that in my view.

[speltwon]

55. Well, sure. Nothing wrong in a Minority Report Speech Crime

Orwellian sort of way, no.

Sorry for mixing my sci-fi metaphors.

But regardless, in your prior statement saying you agreed with such limitations you also admitted that the point I made was correct. These limitations exist in Canada, not in the US. Which was my point

[Amonester]

59. KKKarl Rove was (still is) easily the "decider" of what is "true"

to Repuke$. He simply takes reporters hostage by "deciding" who "deserves" ACCESS and who doesn't.

You think he ever cared about the "quaint" (dumbbya's words) 1st Amendment?

Get real.

[speltwon]

62. Of course not

But he isn't exercising prior restraint.

[HEyHEY]

44. Absolute horseshit.

We have hate speech laws, that's about it. We do have strict libel laws. But that just makes it so if you slander someone they can sue you, it doesn't "restrict free speech".

[speltwon]

48. Well, yes. And that significantly limits speech freedom

That was kind of my point. I find it interesting that even if the speech is conveyed between two willing participants if it occurs on a phone network, it is prosecutable

[HEyHEY]

50. It isn't that simple.

If I call up someone and say "Jon's a dickhead" he can't prosecute me for that. But, if I phone them up and say "Hey, Jon's been molesting kids" then yeah, Jon can haul my ass to court for it, as he should be allowed to.

If it will hurt the person reputation in that much of a severe way you can be sued. However, we have three ways to defend any such allegations. It doesn't limit free speech as it is not criminal prosecution. In fact, if you took a look you'd see the only cases these laws have ever been enacted in are when published news reports are involved.

[speltwon]

54. Neither are what I am referring to and you are showing a lack of understanding imo

You are talking slander and libel. I am talking hate speech. Those are ENTIRELY different things. First of all, in a slander or libel case, one must prove falsity (among other things such as harm and two different standards depending on whether the recipient is a public figure or not)

Hate speech is an entirely different thing. First of all, no demonstrable harm to any individual's reputation etc. needs to be proved in a hate crime prosecution. And note, I said hate crime PROSECUTION. These laws have criminal penalties. Hate speech laws in Canada do not require a proof of falsity otoh, unlike libel/slander laws.

There are a host of other differences, as well

[HEyHEY]

56. I'm addressing your overall statement about our laws restricting free speech

And I know my libel/hate/slander laws in Canada VERY well. I had to for work. I think the hate speech laws protect personal freedom more than inhibit it.

[speltwon]

58. Well, yes they "protect personal freedom" in the same way burning a village with napalm "protects it

Seriously. Regardless, I made no distinction between libel/slander in the US vs. Canada. The distinction was with hate speech laws. And the example you used was libel stuff and so... draw your own conclusions. To actually argue that restricting and criminalizing expression of offensive ideas "protects freedom" would make Orwell proud.

[HEyHEY]

64. Typical USA bullshit

Same as with your guns down there. You think the "right to bear arms" is a personal freedom, in Canada we consider the right NOT to be surrounded by people WITH guns to be a feeling of freedom.

As to the hate speech. It protects freedom because those who could be the subject of hate speech in Canada can walk down the street without fear or without having to hide their faces cause some ass like Glenn Beck told everyone to be scared of muslims. Don't give me your shit.

[speltwon]

67. Actually, not all Canadians agree with you and don't deign to speak for them

One of my best friends is Canadian, working here on a Visa and she certainly doesn't agree with Canada's restrictions on speech. Her family lives on a farm and has plenty of guns and she's fine with that.

Regardless, I *will* give you my shit, when my shit is FREE SPEECH. Free speech is radical, dangerous, offensive, challenging, and hard to deal with. That's why it was so amazing when our founders wrote the 1st amendment, and that's why I stand proud that my nation, in near isolation truly protects it.

Also note I simply argued that we have more free speech rights. That's inarguable. It's a tangential issue, and your belief, that your system of restricted speech rights is a better system. I disagree with that, but again it's tangential to the issue that Canadians DO have less free speech rights

[HEyHEY]

69. Why noit? You're speaking for all Americans/

Your country doesn't protect free speech. It' insane what people get arrest for down there. We never had politicians take musicians to court and ban plays. Give me a break. USA free speech my ass. Can you even burn your nations flag legally yet?

[speltwon]

73. Yes we can burn our flag

Thanks for asking. Anyway, you can play evasion all you want. We have more freedom of speech, as was admitted vis a vis hate crime laws.

[HEyHEY]

87. Because you're looking at this from a typical "American way is best" angle

Sorry, but as I said with my comparison to your gun laws, you view holding a gun as freedom. I view not being next to people holding guns as free. So, pull it out of your behind and realize the rest of the world does things differently.

I'd like you to find ny time someone's been prosecuted as well. Cause you can't actually even be CHRARGED with it unless they think you're advocating harm to a certain group. It's no different than making a threat to a particular person except it includes groups of people.

[speltwon]

91. No, I'm not. I'm advocating from a fact based angle

consistent with the position of the CCLA among others, I might add.

What you can't seem to understand is that there are two seperate matters

1) Canada has less freedom of speech but has a right to be free from hate speech
2) Whether one thinks that is good or bad or "canada is best' or America is best is ANOTHER POINT ENTIRELY.

Let me explain this simply for you.

1) Canada has universal healthcare

That is an analogy to (1) above. It is inarguable. They have it. We don't

2) Whether it is better or worse is a matter of opinion. I happen to think that Canada's system is superior.

What you are doing is kneejerking and ignoring facts based upon your incorrect assumption that what I think about the differences as a matter of policy preference has ANYTHING to do with the facts OF the differences.

Not only have I extensively studied Canadian hate speech law, as well as American Hate CRIME law, but I received train the trainer training from a rather intensive class that included BOTH RCMP and US Law Enforcement and thus got firsthand knowledge of the difference between our two systems

[Evoman]

80. I'm Canadian, and I agree with him.

I also get a kick out of people so full of jingoistic bullshit that they can't see that other ways of doing things may be better. I also laugh when Americans talk about "escaping to Canada, a better place to live", and in the same breath say "except for their gun laws and anti-free speech laws". Morans.

[speltwon]

82. The Canadian Parliament agrees with me

In the discussion prior to passing hate speech laws, they made the very point I was making - that by passing these laws they were passing a greater restriction on speech. NOBODY argued that this was somehow expanding speech freedom. The argument was that the pressing need for civility and to protect entire classes of people from injurious speech overrode the expansive free speech rights that existed prior to these statutes. That is simply not arguable.

It is an entirely differnt argument, a policy one, as to whether hate speech laws are "good" or not.

Canada clearly has more freedom in some respects, but speech is not one of those respects. It's really that simple. That is entirely tangential to whether one thinks that's good or bad. It just IS.

The CCLA (which many americans do not know about - it is the Canadian version of the ACLU) makes many of these points on their website and position papers, and they are a bunch of very smart lawyers who advocate for civil rights in Canada.

Essentially, Canada has created a right to be free from speech that is offensive in certain ways. In order to create that "right", they necessarily had to limit the rights of others to engage in speech. That's simply how tradeoffs work.

I fucking love Canada. I visit all the time. This isn't about "who is a better country" or "which country is better to live in" or other such subjective bilge. It's simply about ONE particular issue - speech.

[Evoman]

86. The Canadian parliament is full of conservative assholes who HATE anti-hate legislation.

Big fucking deal.

[speltwon]

90. Great, but the whole reason it was passed was for the reason I claimed

Iow, the PROPONENTS wanted to limit speech. They frigging admitted it. It's not rocket science. A law that takes certain kinds of speech that were not criminal and makes them criminal is LIMITING SPEECH.

Some are for it, some are against it. Whether it is good policy is a matter of opinion. Whether it restricts speech freedom is a matter of facts.

[Doctor_J]

76. Sounds like you believe any law restricts free speech

and is therefore unconstitutional. Are you against all slander and libel laws?

[speltwon]

93. No, it doesn't sound like that at all

What I am saying is that Canada has less freedom of speech because the laws restricting speech are more expansive than ours.

I am entirely for libel and slander laws, however if we eliminated libel and slander laws, we undoubtedly would have broader freedom of speech, to include the right to slander and libel people. That would be a BAD thing, but it would be a thing that was indisputable.

In this thread, it amazes me that people can;'t understand the difference between the facts and the opinion

1) fact: Canada recognizes less free speech than america
2) opinion: this is good or bad

[bemildred]

66. Lying is not freedom of speech anymore than rape is sexual liberation.

Freedom of speech is the right to say what you really think.

[The Magistrate]

71. Well Put, My Friend

[nichomachus]

84. Freedom of speech does not mean

that you can't be held accountable for your speech -- all it means is that the government can't prevent you from speaking a priori.

If I were to go on television and claim you were a child molester, you could sue me and probably would win. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[Enthusiast]

85. I know which system I like.

It ain't ours. Just consider the damage done by Fox news alone.

[CommonSensePLZ]

6. I fucking hate how they corrupt freedom and logic

The founding fathers were philosophers and lovers of TRUTH who detested how religion and monarchism oppressed reason and dissent. They didn't put that in there so people could hide behind it so they could use superiorist, hateful slurs, lies and propaganda to get their way. Oh, but they'll forget about that and claim they know what the founding fathers were thinking and call you "unpatriotic" when you disagree with them.

"The fact, in short, is that freedom, to be meaningful in an organized society must consist of an amalgam of hierarchy of freedoms and restraints." ~Samuel Hendel

"There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought." ~Charles Kingsley

[NorthCarolina]

8. A Law Against Lying on the News?

That's simply un-American.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. I simply would be happy with a disclaimer before programs which do not meet a certain standard...

of journalistic integrity, stating they're opinion and may or may not be factual here in the US.

[howaboutme]

13. Too much propaganda is perpetuated

There should be a law against propagating false rumors and beliefs to advance any political interests, punishable by public notoriety and a misdemeanor.

If you forward any email that has unverified falsities then you should pay the price of frivolous recklessness. Your photo should appear as a mug shot on the evening news and a record of the event maintained.

[Scuba]

14. Because our justice system has been corrupted, just like everything else. n/t

[BzaDem]

22. For anyone who even thinks such a law MIGHT be a good idea in America -- who do you want deciding

what is a lie, say, from 2001-2008? The former Bush administration? Or the Bush Supreme Court?

[speltwon]

40. Thank you.

The ultimate "decider" in what is and isn;'t the truth is the PEOPLE, not the government.

[Nye Bevan]

24. Imagine a journalist claiming that Bush stole the Ohio vote in 2004.

Someone complains, and a judge looks at the evidence and decides they are wrong. The journalist goes to jail.

Or a journalist goes to jail for claiming that Bush lied about WMD evidence, because some judge decides that was not literally true.

See the problems that this kind of law can produce?

[joeunderdog]

29. The difference is between inaccuracy and dishonesty.

BIG difference.

The absence of a law of this kind allows bigger distortions of facts. Just think what might happen if we didn't have to endure the spin of why the exit polls don't match the results.

[X_Digger]

81. +1 n/t

[azul]

36. MSM News has become a joke in the US and needs regulation.

When major news outlets can monopolize the stories and lie with no consequences, we need regulation.

Used to be if a news report made an error with the facts they would run a correction. After getting taken-in by too many errors, the audience would lose faith in the reporting and look for another source. Credibility was their bread and butter. Now their advertisers and owners are sometimes better served by reporting errors, or not reporting at all, and the public has no better options or way to determine the real truth.

So a law that a "news" report has to run corrections if facts are in error, and a law something like an editor or reporter would get a year in jail for 3 errors would help clean up this mess.

A truthful source of news reporting needs to be established to keep business and politicians honest.

[speltwon]

57. That is so astoundingly Orwellian I don't know where to begin

Criminalizing this stuff? Really? Regardless, with the advent of cable and the internet, there has never been a freer more democratic era of media. There is nothing preventing one or more truthful source of news reporting from existing, even w/o the regulations. It just means that the power to choose which news org to watch rests with the people, w/o prior restraint

[Amonester]

60. And may the sexiest looking lying *bimbos* *faux neeeuse* win...

What's next? WW III? Labor camps? Hmmm?

Good luck...

[speltwon]

61. Whatever's next, I don't advocate gutting the Constitution for the "fear of the week"

It wouldn't be the first time we had muckrakers.

[athenasatanjesus]

37. The best liars lie by telling the truth.......in their own way.

A law against lying sounds nice,but I doubt it really helps any.

[disillusioned73]

65. Truth within media...

wow, what a novel concept. Our populace is primed for propoganda and some around here think that that is juuuust fine.. hmmm

[speltwon]

68. Some of us think it's not fine at all

But we think you don't gut the constitution out of fear of it, any more than you gut the constitution ex-post 9/11.

Same exact thing. Some people are always willing to curtail basic freedoms for whatever the latest scare is.

[disillusioned73]

70. Then we have a fundamental difference of opinion..

being unable to claim to be a responsible member of the media aka "the fourth estate" which was believed to be a foundation for truth with the end result of an informed electorate vs. our constitutional right to free speech are two separate issues.

edit spelling

[speltwon]

72. My opinion fortunately is supported by the constitution

and case law, such that there is no free speech exception for journalists. They have it

[disillusioned73]

74. You can call them journalists if you like...

I'll call them what they are... propagandists.

[speltwon]

79. Well, that's true. The point is the first amendment and case law doesn't carve out an exception for

one that does not apply to the other. In the day and age of the internet, blogs, etc. almost anybody can be a citizen journalist with immense reach. The credibility of a journalist is not correlated to size of the the agency they work for. The NYT, CNN, Fox, etc. have all been popped for blatantly dishonest journalism.

We don't license journalists. We license hair dressers, massage therapists, heck some states even license interior designers (which is absurd but I digress)...

That's because people have 1st amendment rights, and we don't cede the power to govt. to determine who is a bona fide truth speaker and who isn't. We let the marketplace of ideas ferret that out. It is an imperfect process, but it far surpasses the altnernative - a govt. that vets truth tellers.

[Doctor_J]

75. As shown recently, the constitution allows for really bad law

Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, the DC gun law... So claiming something is "supported by the Constitution" means little at this moment in history.

[speltwon]

77. That was a free speech case which is why ACLU as well as

Floyd Abrams, the first amendment attorney behind the NYT's fight against the Nixon admin both supported the pro-free speech side of the case.

The BOR is not a prophylactic against "bad law". It *is* a limitation on certain govt. power. Lots of bad law is constitutional, and some quite good law would be unconstitutional. That's a side effect of rule of law

[snot]

78. The problem is not that lies are allowed on the news.

The problem is that 95% of traditional media worldwide are controlled by the ruling class. (So there is no real "marketplace of ideas.")

And that enables them to control the agenda, as well as to spread lies thicker and faster than libel laws or other means of correction can keep up.

And they are rapidly taking over the internet as well; see, e.g., Lawrence Lessig: "The innovation commons of the Internet threatens important and powerful pre-Internet interests. During the past five years, those interests have mobilized to launch a counterrevolution that is now having a global impact" (http://www.lessig.org/content/columns/foreignpolicy1.pdf ); and Tim Wu, per The Guardian: "The internet as a model of free speech and access is coming to an end, says web expert Tim Wu" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/the-master-switch-tim-wu-internet ).

(If you'd like to do something about that, you might want to get on Al Franken's e-mail list.)

[KharmaTrain]

88. Who Determines "The Truth"

A slippery slope on this one. While I detest hate radio I prefer the marketplace to be the determinator. If people know about lies and still want to believe them, sadly, that's part of a "free society". So do we have a Dept. Of Truth to determine if a news story is true or not and whose in charge?

Also whatif a person gives a weather forecast that says its gonna rain and it doesn't...is that person also liable?

[HEyHEY]

92. It's not actually "no lying" it's no false information that could harms the public interest

[KoKo]

89. Curious...K&R!