superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,873
I've expressed this idea before, but I think it's worth re-examining.
There's one particular part of First Amendment doctrine that I think is truly harming the world: the freedom to lie with near impunity. Our only way of addressing those lies is through defamation, and a) the "actual malice" standard protects so much shit; and b) most people can't realistically bring defamation actions because their damages would not cover litigation costs.
Sullivan v New York Times was the right outcome in that case, and it was also right to note that intent has to be an element of a defamation action in the realm of public discourse. But it needs to be paired with criminal defamation laws. We would need protections against abuse, like "the state pays all defendants' fees if the case is not meritorious," and SLAAP laws. What cannot be tolerated is the firehose of falseness that infects the political discourse.
How does this relate to political violence? Easy. The country was founded on speaking truth to power. The Declaration was one of the great examples of speaking truth to power in history. And it's speaking truth to power that gives people hope, that makes them work within the system. If you are being oppressed by powerful people, then what makes America great is the ability to stand up and say, "look at what they are doing to us!" "Is this the society we want?" "Say to my face that you deem me subhuman," etc.
When truth doesn't matter, then only violence does. The problem that Dems face now -- the reason that people on the left see them as squeamish -- is that there is no effective response in a world in which partisanship trumps reality. And when you can't end oppression with truth-telling, people will result to other means. The killer of Kirk might well be a transgender person (or has transgender loved ones) who has been unable to get gender-affirming medical care. And since it means nothing to say, "they are lying about transgender people," what should someone who had their medical care forcibly stripped from them do in response? Dialogue not being an option, the choices as I see them are acquiesce to oppression or fight.
We should have laws that allow people to be put in jail when they knowingly say things like "they are eating the dogs, they are eating the pets." Or that there are gangs of illegal immigrants walking up from Mexico to Minnesota to take peoples' summer homes (remember when that was a thing?) or taking over the police force of a town, etc. Not all lies need be eligible for this treatment. If Trump says he never knew Epstein, I don't really care that much. It's when he lies about others that it's a problem.
Until we realize that lies are metastatic cancers on civic society that should not be tolerated, the death spiral of democracy will continue.
There's one particular part of First Amendment doctrine that I think is truly harming the world: the freedom to lie with near impunity. Our only way of addressing those lies is through defamation, and a) the "actual malice" standard protects so much shit; and b) most people can't realistically bring defamation actions because their damages would not cover litigation costs.
Sullivan v New York Times was the right outcome in that case, and it was also right to note that intent has to be an element of a defamation action in the realm of public discourse. But it needs to be paired with criminal defamation laws. We would need protections against abuse, like "the state pays all defendants' fees if the case is not meritorious," and SLAAP laws. What cannot be tolerated is the firehose of falseness that infects the political discourse.
How does this relate to political violence? Easy. The country was founded on speaking truth to power. The Declaration was one of the great examples of speaking truth to power in history. And it's speaking truth to power that gives people hope, that makes them work within the system. If you are being oppressed by powerful people, then what makes America great is the ability to stand up and say, "look at what they are doing to us!" "Is this the society we want?" "Say to my face that you deem me subhuman," etc.
When truth doesn't matter, then only violence does. The problem that Dems face now -- the reason that people on the left see them as squeamish -- is that there is no effective response in a world in which partisanship trumps reality. And when you can't end oppression with truth-telling, people will result to other means. The killer of Kirk might well be a transgender person (or has transgender loved ones) who has been unable to get gender-affirming medical care. And since it means nothing to say, "they are lying about transgender people," what should someone who had their medical care forcibly stripped from them do in response? Dialogue not being an option, the choices as I see them are acquiesce to oppression or fight.
We should have laws that allow people to be put in jail when they knowingly say things like "they are eating the dogs, they are eating the pets." Or that there are gangs of illegal immigrants walking up from Mexico to Minnesota to take peoples' summer homes (remember when that was a thing?) or taking over the police force of a town, etc. Not all lies need be eligible for this treatment. If Trump says he never knew Epstein, I don't really care that much. It's when he lies about others that it's a problem.
Until we realize that lies are metastatic cancers on civic society that should not be tolerated, the death spiral of democracy will continue.
