And Now They Come For Your Speech...

[seer]

The sad part is that there probably leftists on this site will agree.

It Begins: California Senator Introduces Bill to Kill Free Speech, Requires State-Sanctioned Fact Checkers to Approve Online Content

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018...nline-content/

[EvoUK]

Is your issue that it's supposedly 'state-sanctioned' (whatever that means)? Just wondering as you haven't specified your concern.

[seer]

Is your issue that it's supposedly 'state-sanctioned' (whatever that means)? Just wondering as you haven't specified your concern.

I don't want the government telling me or anyone what we can print or convey, or what I need to fact check or not. It is NONE of their business.

[Psychic Missile]

The bill is vague to the point of uselessness. However, it clearly wouldn't kill free speech or require state-sanctioned fact checkers, so maybe it would help someone like you who is wholly uncritical of pandering "news" sources.

[TheWall]

Newspeak vibes.

[seer]

The bill is vague to the point of uselessness. However, it clearly wouldn't kill free speech or require state-sanctioned fact checkers, so maybe it would help someone like you who is wholly uncritical of pandering "news" sources.

It is not vague, they would require you to have fact checkers, a strategic plan to verify your news stories, place warnings on possible false stories, etc... The point is, this is NOT the government's business. And who is going to make sure all this happens except the government?

[Starlight]

The bill does seem vague on first-draft and I imagine it's highly unlikely to pass as-is.

But there do seem to be problems with the conservative embrace of fake news that probably do need to be addressed somehow. Studies have found that conservatives have a smaller and less active part of the brain that does error-checking than liberals do. And anecdotal comments from people who have made a business of writing fake news articles for facebook groups say it's pointless doing it for liberal groups as someone debunks it or fact-checks it within an average of 4 comments, whereas on conservative groups it often never gets debunked or fact-checked.

Youtube has announced that it will tackle the problem by adding a link to a relevant wikipedia article below each video that it detects might have highly inaccurate content. That strikes me as an appropriate compromise - you don't censor the false content but you do promote fact-checking of it. I think that sort of approach is what the OP proposed bill is trying to ham-fistedly require.

[Starlight]

I don't want the government telling me or anyone what we can print or convey, or what I need to fact check or not. It is NONE of their business.

The government already does this for false advertising, slander, threats etc. It is their business.

But much censorship of general speech and sharing of opinions is obviously going to start running up against the First Amendment pretty quickly.

However the government already has all sorts of standards and requirements for various types of news sources to follow, and it regulates radio and TV news and has done for decades. If an entity is purporting to be a 'news source' and the person is presenting it to others as 'news', then it seems a relatively obvious choice to extend some of the historic telecommunications regulations to cover the new internet news sources and how their news is disseminated.

[Psychic Missile]

It is not vague, they would require you to have fact checkers, a strategic plan to verify your news stories, place warnings on possible false stories, etc... The point is, this is NOT the government's business. And who is going to make sure all this happens except the government?

How is information determined to be false? Can anyone be a fact checker? How much notice is considered outreach? What even is a "news story"? Couldn't that just be a tweet? The government would have to prove that a website owner is breaking the law, but since so much of the law is undefined, it would be very difficult. What if I say all of the users of my website are fact checkers? Do I have to police satire? If I just have a warning buried in the ToS saying any news story could be false, isn't that outreach? The law doesn't even technically require the enaction of a plan, just that the website owner have one!

[Starlight]

How is information determined to be false? Can anyone be a fact checker? How much notice is considered outreach? What even is a "news story"? Couldn't that just be a tweet? The government would have to prove that a website owner is breaking the law, but since so much of the law is undefined, it would be very difficult. What if I say all of the users of my website are fact checkers? Do I have to police satire? If I just have a warning buried in the ToS saying any news story could be false, isn't that outreach? The law doesn't even technically require the enaction of a plan, just that the website owner have one!

If writing "My Plan: I will correct fake news spread on my site" on a piece of toilet paper and then not getting round to actually doing anything else is enough to comply with the law, the law probably isn't strong enough.

[Mountain Man]

The bill is vague to the point of uselessness.

Which means that it can be broadly interpreted however the government sees fit.

[Psychic Missile]

Which means that it can be broadly interpreted however the government sees fit.

Then it would for certain be able to hold up in court.

[Mountain Man]

Then it would for certain be able to hold up in court.

I wouldn't put anything past a liberal judge.

[Roy]

I don't want the government telling me or anyone what we can print or convey, or what I need to fact check or not. It is NONE of their business.

You want to be able to propagate stories without bothering to check whether they are true, and without giving any indication that they might not be.

[rogue06]

A government in charge of "fact checking" stories is a government that can shut down any and all investigations of itself.