"We lose so many lives because of misinformation"
September 2, 2021 1:52 PM Subscribe
The negative effects of disinformation and misinformation around the globe have been clear and disturbing. In response, Stanford University's History Education Group has put together a free curriculum with lesson plans and assessments for teachers and professors. The Civic Online Reasoning curriculum is intended to teach students how to recognize misinformation and disinformation by employing techniques used by professional fact checkers. You have to register (free) to access the lesson plans and assessments, but the videos--hosted by YA author and Crash Course creator John Green--are also available as a YouTube playlist. The curriculum is based on peer-reviewed research and has been tested in real classrooms.
I just don't see this helping the pro horse-deworming pill people. IMO, the problem we face today isn't about identifying propaganda, but about wanting to apply simple techniques -- the ones we already teach children -- to the facts supporting causes we already believe in. Any "defense against the dark arts" curriculum needs to focus on combatting motivated reasoning.
posted by pwnguin at 2:17 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by pwnguin at 2:17 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
I just don't see this helping the pro horse-deworming pill people.
It's meant to help students not turn into pro horse-deworming people.
posted by lalochezia at 2:46 PM on September 2, 2021 [55 favorites]
Exactly. Get to them early, and the mistakes of the next generation may be made by a smaller set.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:12 PM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by armoir from antproof case at 3:12 PM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
The problem, though, is that it's once again turning a societal problem into a personal one - that the answer to combating misinformation/disinformation is to teach people to be more "resistant" to it, rather than actually addressing the creation of it. And part of why is because actually addressing misinformation/disinformation on a societal level would mean taking aim at a few cultural sacred cows of the West (and the US in particular.)
When you have an (admittedly disgraced) law professor arguing that there is a First Amendment right to spread disinformation, there is something seriously wrong.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:13 PM on September 2, 2021 [50 favorites]
When you have an (admittedly disgraced) law professor arguing that there is a First Amendment right to spread disinformation, there is something seriously wrong.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:13 PM on September 2, 2021 [50 favorites]
The problem, though, is that it's once again turning a societal problem into a personal one - that the answer to combating misinformation/disinformation is to teach people to be more "resistant" to it, rather than actually addressing the creation of it.
Ok. I'll give Stanford and Green credit for combatting the issue where they can, though.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:48 PM on September 2, 2021 [17 favorites]
Ok. I'll give Stanford and Green credit for combatting the issue where they can, though.
posted by Navelgazer at 3:48 PM on September 2, 2021 [17 favorites]
Have the institutions considered becoming trustworthy?
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:56 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 3:56 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
Have the institutions considered becoming trustworthy?
Even the most noble institution won't be trusted by an ignorant person who's been brainwashed against it and can't discern the truth for themself. It all comes back to education and learning to think clearly, it's really the only thing that can help.
posted by Liquidwolf at 4:29 PM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
Even the most noble institution won't be trusted by an ignorant person who's been brainwashed against it and can't discern the truth for themself. It all comes back to education and learning to think clearly, it's really the only thing that can help.
posted by Liquidwolf at 4:29 PM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
As long as we're unwilling to name names and point fingers at who's spreading the vast majority of disinformation (conservatives) these efforts will be hobbled.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:31 PM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by RonButNotStupid at 4:31 PM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
Hobbled is better than the alternative.
There is no silver bullet here.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 4:38 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
There is no silver bullet here.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 4:38 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
By which I mean, like the rest of human history before us, we will need to iterate, iterate, iterate the ignorance away. Often progress can look like change isn’t happening fast “enough”, but the perfect is always the enemy of the good.
I don’t think I saw in TFA that the suggested approaches are the only tools in the shed.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 4:48 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
I don’t think I saw in TFA that the suggested approaches are the only tools in the shed.
posted by armoir from antproof case at 4:48 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
Show me something that mitigates harm or just outright helps, and I'll find "the problem , though." Seems like this is decent harm reduction made free to folks who want to engage with it. I don't see how this endeavor doesn't net positive for folks.
Unless a solution holistically address the consequences of genociding slavers incepting legal, regulatory, corporate, and dominant cultural environments in materially every corner of the now united states, it'll have shortcomings. I still think it does more harm than good. The initiatives I feel comfortable saying that about are limited.
posted by CPAnarchist at 4:54 PM on September 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
Unless a solution holistically address the consequences of genociding slavers incepting legal, regulatory, corporate, and dominant cultural environments in materially every corner of the now united states, it'll have shortcomings. I still think it does more harm than good. The initiatives I feel comfortable saying that about are limited.
posted by CPAnarchist at 4:54 PM on September 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
When you have an (admittedly disgraced) law professor arguing that there is a First Amendment right to spread disinformation, there is something seriously wrong.
When you have a left that increasingly has reservations about the First Amendment, you know something is seriously wrong.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:15 PM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
When you have a left that increasingly has reservations about the First Amendment, you know something is seriously wrong.
posted by 2N2222 at 5:15 PM on September 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
Ugh, does more good than harm. I'll see myself out.
posted by CPAnarchist at 5:18 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by CPAnarchist at 5:18 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
I think that a huge part of the problem is that it's legal to spread dangerous disinformation and profit from it.
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 5:18 PM on September 2, 2021 [18 favorites]
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 5:18 PM on September 2, 2021 [18 favorites]
A professor friend of mine is planning on teaching a freshman seminar on this very subject. I forwarded the links to him; thanks, hurdy gurdy girl!
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:36 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 5:36 PM on September 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Despite pushback from other commenters, I'm still glad this resource is here to help schools/teachers teach kids to think critically. The world wide web, is well, world wide, so misinformation can (and realistically will) always transcend national borders (and thus national laws).
posted by oceano at 5:43 PM on September 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by oceano at 5:43 PM on September 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
It's meant to help students not turn into pro horse-deworming people.
It sounds like they’re trying to do critical race theory to our children.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:47 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
It sounds like they’re trying to do critical race theory to our children.
posted by mr_roboto at 5:47 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
There is no silver bullet here.
Mass extinction is a hell of a drug.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:03 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Mass extinction is a hell of a drug.
posted by GenjiandProust at 6:03 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
It all comes back to education and learning to think clearly, it's really the only thing that can help.
You'd think. A friend of mine -- one of the smartest people I've ever met, and with their master's and some progress toward a doctorate -- came out this week as... well, not antivaxxer because they resist that label and don't want to tell anyone else what to do or not to do but, you know, trusting in their own immune system. They don't like taking medicine, you see, and prefer to let their body tell them what's wrong.
At least with the people who declare it is a globalist agenda and will lead to a dystopia in ten years or that the virus has a 99.997% survival rate, there is a point of connection and discussion. This is more, "I don't feel like being part of the solution."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:12 PM on September 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
You'd think. A friend of mine -- one of the smartest people I've ever met, and with their master's and some progress toward a doctorate -- came out this week as... well, not antivaxxer because they resist that label and don't want to tell anyone else what to do or not to do but, you know, trusting in their own immune system. They don't like taking medicine, you see, and prefer to let their body tell them what's wrong.
At least with the people who declare it is a globalist agenda and will lead to a dystopia in ten years or that the virus has a 99.997% survival rate, there is a point of connection and discussion. This is more, "I don't feel like being part of the solution."
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:12 PM on September 2, 2021 [7 favorites]
As long as we're unwilling to name names and point fingers at who's spreading the vast majority of disinformation (conservatives)
Why should anybody be unwilling to point the finger at Rupert Murdoch? He's the clear global leader in this field.
posted by flabdablet at 6:16 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
Why should anybody be unwilling to point the finger at Rupert Murdoch? He's the clear global leader in this field.
posted by flabdablet at 6:16 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
came out this week as... well, not antivaxxer ... but, you know, trusting in their own immune system
AAAARGH
This line of unreasoning SHITS ME TO TEARS
What the FUCK does this broken shut-down excuse for an intellect think that vaccines even DO?
posted by flabdablet at 6:20 PM on September 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
AAAARGH
This line of unreasoning SHITS ME TO TEARS
What the FUCK does this broken shut-down excuse for an intellect think that vaccines even DO?
posted by flabdablet at 6:20 PM on September 2, 2021 [16 favorites]
The Insufferably Intolerant Science Nerd posted this week that refusing the vaccine because you have an immune system is like refusing to train for a boxing match because you have muscles.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:21 PM on September 2, 2021 [53 favorites]
posted by ricochet biscuit at 6:21 PM on September 2, 2021 [53 favorites]
I watched the photos and videos and the infographics. One thing I note is he always gives two examples, which appear to me to be deliberately picked so to be targeted at the "right" and the "left." Which does feel like a hedge against accusations of "bias."
Here's a graph that underplays the extent of global warming, and here's uh ... a graph that exaggerates the impact of an Obama-era education policy.
I kind of wish the "photos and videos" entry put more emphasis on the use of context and framing to attribute meaning to a photo or video, and less on photo manipulation and deep fakes? I see so much more of the former, and I think a lot of people don't appreciate how effective it is.
posted by RobotHero at 6:23 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
Here's a graph that underplays the extent of global warming, and here's uh ... a graph that exaggerates the impact of an Obama-era education policy.
I kind of wish the "photos and videos" entry put more emphasis on the use of context and framing to attribute meaning to a photo or video, and less on photo manipulation and deep fakes? I see so much more of the former, and I think a lot of people don't appreciate how effective it is.
posted by RobotHero at 6:23 PM on September 2, 2021 [10 favorites]
Last little while I've been seeing stuff on the Twitter side bar basically like: "Widespread video is actually a firefighter doing a controlled burn to help stop the spread of wild fires." and I immediately have a pretty good idea what some people were claiming it was video of.
posted by RobotHero at 7:19 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by RobotHero at 7:19 PM on September 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I went through most of my life assuming nukes would be The Great Filter, but turns out the internet is going to do the trick.
posted by furnace.heart at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by furnace.heart at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
When you have an (admittedly disgraced) law professor arguing that there is a First Amendment right to spread disinformation, there is something seriously wrong.
As far as a general statement about current First Amendment jurisprudence, there's no doubt whatsoever that you have a First Amendment right to spread disinformation. (There are specific exceptions, such as defamation/libel, but I'm talking about that statement as a general matter.)
Now, should you have that right? That is an extremely complex question, and if you think the answer is obvious, you haven't thought about it very hard, I'd say.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:26 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
As far as a general statement about current First Amendment jurisprudence, there's no doubt whatsoever that you have a First Amendment right to spread disinformation. (There are specific exceptions, such as defamation/libel, but I'm talking about that statement as a general matter.)
Now, should you have that right? That is an extremely complex question, and if you think the answer is obvious, you haven't thought about it very hard, I'd say.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:26 PM on September 2, 2021 [9 favorites]
This is timely. Due to one of my wife's cousins, I had to sit the kids down yesterday for a talk about what people railing against George Soros and "globalists" are really getting at.
posted by Harald74 at 11:52 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by Harald74 at 11:52 PM on September 2, 2021 [13 favorites]
I am hoping that these materials cover such old chestnuts as dismissing something extremely helpful because it cannot work 100% of the time.
Like vaccines. Or educational programs to help people not succumb to disinformation.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:51 AM on September 3, 2021 [30 favorites]
Like vaccines. Or educational programs to help people not succumb to disinformation.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:51 AM on September 3, 2021 [30 favorites]
What the FUCK does this broken shut-down excuse for an intellect think that vaccines even DO?
Unfortunately, a lot of people think that vaccines *lower* their immune system, which...I can't even...
posted by jeremias at 3:54 AM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Unfortunately, a lot of people think that vaccines *lower* their immune system, which...I can't even...
posted by jeremias at 3:54 AM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
I normally hate being forced to watch a video (I can read the same content so much faster)--but I did just spare 2 1/2 minutes to watch the one about Wikipedia and lateral reading. It's good.
posted by gimonca at 4:26 AM on September 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 4:26 AM on September 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
it's once again turning a societal problem into a personal one - that the answer to combating misinformation/disinformation is to teach people to be more "resistant" to it, rather than actually addressing the creation of it.
It's not like these two concepts work at cross purposes. Rather they are complementary. When your boat springs a leak not bailing isn't a valid action just because the root of the problem is a hole in the boat.
If nothing else if I could train some of the people in my life to be a little more skeptical of the information spreading via Facebook et. al. my life would be better.
posted by Mitheral at 6:43 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
It's not like these two concepts work at cross purposes. Rather they are complementary. When your boat springs a leak not bailing isn't a valid action just because the root of the problem is a hole in the boat.
If nothing else if I could train some of the people in my life to be a little more skeptical of the information spreading via Facebook et. al. my life would be better.
posted by Mitheral at 6:43 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
>trusting in their own immune system
helluva thought-terminating cliche, that
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:59 AM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
helluva thought-terminating cliche, that
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:59 AM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
When you have a left that increasingly has reservations about the First Amendment, you know something is seriously wrong.
Hogwash. If it's uncomfortable that people of good will are recognizing the harm that Fox News, the conservative media ecosystem, and Facebook/YouTube algorithms are doing to the US, them maybe what's seriously wrong are Fox News, the conservative media ecosystem, and the Facebook/YouTube algorithms, not fretting about "reservations about the First Amendment."
Beyond that, the First Amendment doesn't let one yell "fire" in a crowded theater, extort, or libel, and prior to conservatives dismantling them, regulations preventing concentration of media ownership had no First Amendment conflict. So once again it seems that the real reservations being expressed here are over the recognition that the First Amendment allows for regulation of harmful speech.
posted by Gelatin at 7:03 AM on September 3, 2021 [25 favorites]
Hogwash. If it's uncomfortable that people of good will are recognizing the harm that Fox News, the conservative media ecosystem, and Facebook/YouTube algorithms are doing to the US, them maybe what's seriously wrong are Fox News, the conservative media ecosystem, and the Facebook/YouTube algorithms, not fretting about "reservations about the First Amendment."
Beyond that, the First Amendment doesn't let one yell "fire" in a crowded theater, extort, or libel, and prior to conservatives dismantling them, regulations preventing concentration of media ownership had no First Amendment conflict. So once again it seems that the real reservations being expressed here are over the recognition that the First Amendment allows for regulation of harmful speech.
posted by Gelatin at 7:03 AM on September 3, 2021 [25 favorites]
Thank you for posting this. I'm not sure where I came upon it but I bookmarked it in Youtube and have been inching through the videos.
I think it is super important to have educational goals, one of which should be identifying disinformation, propaganda and marketing. These three elements, in my opinion, swirl around each other with the last element adding legitimacy or a starting point for the other two. They all are the children of the same parents though.
I had a colleague become to be radicalized just before the 2020 election. I had many talks with him about why he thought what he did. Biden is a Satanist. Biden is going to kill the economy. BLM is burning down buildings and killing people. The media are all liars. There are two presidents: one chosen by God and the other had stolen the election.
What I found, as you'd guess, is social media link-sharing from prolific propagandist "news" sites. What the biggest driver for him was his evangelical faith. If you haven't watched, I encourage you to do so, much of the programming of Daystar. They are a televangelist network that has put in time to polish much of their messaging. What they say is that Trump won. He is their protector. Covid vaccines are dangerous. Dangerous for your children. Covid vaccines change your DNA and God created your DNA thus, they are against God. For people of faith, that is a very, very bad thing, obviously.
The other message is about obeying. Disobedience to God is a sin. Well, you might say, God is not telling them anything, rather the televangelist is. This is where, they begin talking about false prophets and true prophets. This allows them to be seen as tellers of the truth. The thought being: why would a false prophet tell me about false prophets? This space allows them to present to their audience as true prophets. To start to make the case. As the people who buy the airtime to present, what do you know, week after week their prophecies come to pass. Affirmation of the truth. They also will sell you a book or holy water or a vitamin that will help you through these troubling times.
I have argued here in the Blue before, that the whole non-profit designation loophole and religious exemption facilitates a bastardization of the statute. You will find so many dishonest people utilizing non profits or churches because they can do their dirty work, in plain sight, and no one will come after them. The IRS and attorneys general who oversee non profits and churches are loathe to look at them too closely. I mean, look at the reporting on the Mormon Church and see what has transpired. To my mind, nothing.
All this to say, you have to start somewhere. What better place than with information. Understanding the deep problems caused by disinformation becomes easier to grasp. Setting forth fixes has to, unfortunately, come later.
posted by zerobyproxy at 7:10 AM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
I think it is super important to have educational goals, one of which should be identifying disinformation, propaganda and marketing. These three elements, in my opinion, swirl around each other with the last element adding legitimacy or a starting point for the other two. They all are the children of the same parents though.
I had a colleague become to be radicalized just before the 2020 election. I had many talks with him about why he thought what he did. Biden is a Satanist. Biden is going to kill the economy. BLM is burning down buildings and killing people. The media are all liars. There are two presidents: one chosen by God and the other had stolen the election.
What I found, as you'd guess, is social media link-sharing from prolific propagandist "news" sites. What the biggest driver for him was his evangelical faith. If you haven't watched, I encourage you to do so, much of the programming of Daystar. They are a televangelist network that has put in time to polish much of their messaging. What they say is that Trump won. He is their protector. Covid vaccines are dangerous. Dangerous for your children. Covid vaccines change your DNA and God created your DNA thus, they are against God. For people of faith, that is a very, very bad thing, obviously.
The other message is about obeying. Disobedience to God is a sin. Well, you might say, God is not telling them anything, rather the televangelist is. This is where, they begin talking about false prophets and true prophets. This allows them to be seen as tellers of the truth. The thought being: why would a false prophet tell me about false prophets? This space allows them to present to their audience as true prophets. To start to make the case. As the people who buy the airtime to present, what do you know, week after week their prophecies come to pass. Affirmation of the truth. They also will sell you a book or holy water or a vitamin that will help you through these troubling times.
I have argued here in the Blue before, that the whole non-profit designation loophole and religious exemption facilitates a bastardization of the statute. You will find so many dishonest people utilizing non profits or churches because they can do their dirty work, in plain sight, and no one will come after them. The IRS and attorneys general who oversee non profits and churches are loathe to look at them too closely. I mean, look at the reporting on the Mormon Church and see what has transpired. To my mind, nothing.
All this to say, you have to start somewhere. What better place than with information. Understanding the deep problems caused by disinformation becomes easier to grasp. Setting forth fixes has to, unfortunately, come later.
posted by zerobyproxy at 7:10 AM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
Allison Carter@AllisonLCarter:
“I trust my immune system” is such a weird reason not to get the vaccine.
Yeah, I trust mine to protect me too, which is why I gave it a detailed dossier on what the virus looks like so it can handle it.
1:06 PM · Aug 8, 2021
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:12 AM on September 3, 2021 [14 favorites]
“I trust my immune system” is such a weird reason not to get the vaccine.
Yeah, I trust mine to protect me too, which is why I gave it a detailed dossier on what the virus looks like so it can handle it.
1:06 PM · Aug 8, 2021
posted by sebastienbailard at 7:12 AM on September 3, 2021 [14 favorites]
Well if you want to know why something won't work or isn't good enough, share it in MeFi.
This is something, I'm sure we need to do a lot of other things. There is a real possibility that humans will create challenges that prove to be our own undoing, but in the meantime you do what you can.
posted by elkevelvet at 7:27 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
This is something, I'm sure we need to do a lot of other things. There is a real possibility that humans will create challenges that prove to be our own undoing, but in the meantime you do what you can.
posted by elkevelvet at 7:27 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
It's not like these two concepts work at cross purposes. Rather they are complementary. When your boat springs a leak not bailing isn't a valid action just because the root of the problem is a hole in the boat.
In theory, yes they are complementary. In practice, what happens is that the locus of responsibility is shifted from a societal one to a personal one - rather than there being an obligation to society to not generate disinformation that can harm others, the obligation is on individuals to resist disinformation. To go back to your analogy, what happens is that people are handed a bucket when boarding, being told that there's a leak, so they need to bail.
I have argued here in the Blue before, that the whole non-profit designation loophole and religious exemption facilitates a bastardization of the statute. You will find so many dishonest people utilizing non profits or churches because they can do their dirty work, in plain sight, and no one will come after them.
This is because we tend to treat the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment as something akin to holy writ, and as such Americans in general don't grapple with the issues regarding the separation of church and state, instead being willing to just say "it's religion, we can't get involved." This has created a fertile field for bad faith actors (as John Oliver has demonstrated several times.)
Beyond that, the First Amendment doesn't let one yell "fire" in a crowded theater, extort, or libel, and prior to conservatives dismantling them, regulations preventing concentration of media ownership had no First Amendment conflict.
It is amazing how far up the wall the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" line drives free speech "absolutists" like Ken White and Mike Masnick. Part of it is the history of the line and its ties to Schenck, which fair - but it also feels like part of it is that they want to argue that free speech does require allowing harm to people (i.e. "hate speech is the price of free speech", ) and the phrase sort of puts that all out in the open.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:57 AM on September 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
In theory, yes they are complementary. In practice, what happens is that the locus of responsibility is shifted from a societal one to a personal one - rather than there being an obligation to society to not generate disinformation that can harm others, the obligation is on individuals to resist disinformation. To go back to your analogy, what happens is that people are handed a bucket when boarding, being told that there's a leak, so they need to bail.
I have argued here in the Blue before, that the whole non-profit designation loophole and religious exemption facilitates a bastardization of the statute. You will find so many dishonest people utilizing non profits or churches because they can do their dirty work, in plain sight, and no one will come after them.
This is because we tend to treat the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment as something akin to holy writ, and as such Americans in general don't grapple with the issues regarding the separation of church and state, instead being willing to just say "it's religion, we can't get involved." This has created a fertile field for bad faith actors (as John Oliver has demonstrated several times.)
Beyond that, the First Amendment doesn't let one yell "fire" in a crowded theater, extort, or libel, and prior to conservatives dismantling them, regulations preventing concentration of media ownership had no First Amendment conflict.
It is amazing how far up the wall the "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater" line drives free speech "absolutists" like Ken White and Mike Masnick. Part of it is the history of the line and its ties to Schenck, which fair - but it also feels like part of it is that they want to argue that free speech does require allowing harm to people (i.e. "hate speech is the price of free speech", ) and the phrase sort of puts that all out in the open.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:57 AM on September 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
> the First Amendment allows for regulation of harmful speech.
aka The Constitution is not a suicide pact.[1]
Democracy only works if the median voter is not stupid most of the time.
Unfortunately there are a lot of media orgs (including religious ones) making people so very stupid.
Alan Kay's "point of view is worth 80 IQ points"[2] works in the bad direction too, alas . . . hence the people eating deworming paste currently
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:17 AM on September 3, 2021 [5 favorites]
aka The Constitution is not a suicide pact.[1]
Democracy only works if the median voter is not stupid most of the time.
Unfortunately there are a lot of media orgs (including religious ones) making people so very stupid.
Alan Kay's "point of view is worth 80 IQ points"[2] works in the bad direction too, alas . . . hence the people eating deworming paste currently
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:17 AM on September 3, 2021 [5 favorites]
I have come to the point where I think just voting Republican means somebody has at least a little bit of murder on their hands.
posted by Jacen at 8:34 AM on September 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 8:34 AM on September 3, 2021 [6 favorites]
When you have a
posted by klanawa at 8:54 AM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
So once again it seems that the real reservations being expressed here are over the recognition that the First Amendment allows for regulation of harmful speech.
The First Amendment, as courts have construed it, allows for the regulation of certain kinds of harmful speech (e.g., defamation/libel, fraud, genuine threats of violence). Those are exceptions to the general rule that harmful speech (including political lies/propaganda) is protected speech.
The whole "fire in a crowded theater" drives lawyers crazy because people who don't understand First Amendment law often use it as "proof" of their incorrect assertion that the First Amendment doesn't protect disinformation or harmful speech.
When you get into First Amendment law, you realize how complicated it is. It's extremely difficult to make general statements about any given rule, as there are a million exceptions and different versions/applications of the rules. When you delve into the facts and history of the cases that resulted in those rules, you realize how incredibly difficult it is to come up with a decent widely-applicable rule, and why it is that FA law is full of exceptions and inconsistencies.
If you don't understand why this is the case, it may be that you've never had a law professor ask you in class, "Ok, well what about this situation?" every time you think a certain rule is a good idea.
posted by mikeand1 at 9:24 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
The First Amendment, as courts have construed it, allows for the regulation of certain kinds of harmful speech (e.g., defamation/libel, fraud, genuine threats of violence). Those are exceptions to the general rule that harmful speech (including political lies/propaganda) is protected speech.
The whole "fire in a crowded theater" drives lawyers crazy because people who don't understand First Amendment law often use it as "proof" of their incorrect assertion that the First Amendment doesn't protect disinformation or harmful speech.
When you get into First Amendment law, you realize how complicated it is. It's extremely difficult to make general statements about any given rule, as there are a million exceptions and different versions/applications of the rules. When you delve into the facts and history of the cases that resulted in those rules, you realize how incredibly difficult it is to come up with a decent widely-applicable rule, and why it is that FA law is full of exceptions and inconsistencies.
If you don't understand why this is the case, it may be that you've never had a law professor ask you in class, "Ok, well what about this situation?" every time you think a certain rule is a good idea.
posted by mikeand1 at 9:24 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you don't understand why this is the case, it may be that you've never had a law professor ask you in class, "Ok, well what about this situation?" every time you think a certain rule is a good idea.
Rules can have exceptions and sub-clauses.
posted by tigrrrlily at 9:37 AM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
The First Amendment, as courts have construed it, allows for the regulation of certain kinds of harmful speech (e.g., defamation/libel, fraud, genuine threats of violence).
Then it's a good thing right wing lies haven't resulted in any genuine violence, especially on January 6.
people who don't understand First Amendment law often use it as "proof" of their incorrect assertion that the First Amendment doesn't protect disinformation or harmful speech
But it actually is proof that the First Amendment doesn't absolutely protect harmful speech. It's a matter of balancing the potential harm (many deaths caused by panic) against the benefit (the right to tell a malicious lie). Political lies are generally tolerated because the harm of regulating them is generally seen as greater than the harm the lies cause.
The question is, what if the harm of politically motivated lies -- for example, the lies conservatives tell about the pandemic -- actually does have a significant body count?
When you delve into the facts and history of the cases that resulted in those rules, you realize how incredibly difficult it is to come up with a decent widely-applicable rule, and why it is that FA law is full of exceptions and inconsistencies.
Which would tend to make having "reservations" about the First Amendment an entirely reasonable position, which would in turn mean that the real problem is the excessively harmful lies told by conservatives and their media apparatus.
posted by Gelatin at 9:50 AM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
Then it's a good thing right wing lies haven't resulted in any genuine violence, especially on January 6.
people who don't understand First Amendment law often use it as "proof" of their incorrect assertion that the First Amendment doesn't protect disinformation or harmful speech
But it actually is proof that the First Amendment doesn't absolutely protect harmful speech. It's a matter of balancing the potential harm (many deaths caused by panic) against the benefit (the right to tell a malicious lie). Political lies are generally tolerated because the harm of regulating them is generally seen as greater than the harm the lies cause.
The question is, what if the harm of politically motivated lies -- for example, the lies conservatives tell about the pandemic -- actually does have a significant body count?
When you delve into the facts and history of the cases that resulted in those rules, you realize how incredibly difficult it is to come up with a decent widely-applicable rule, and why it is that FA law is full of exceptions and inconsistencies.
Which would tend to make having "reservations" about the First Amendment an entirely reasonable position, which would in turn mean that the real problem is the excessively harmful lies told by conservatives and their media apparatus.
posted by Gelatin at 9:50 AM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
The whole "fire in a crowded theater" drives lawyers crazy because people who don't understand First Amendment law often use it as "proof" of their incorrect assertion that the First Amendment doesn't protect disinformation or harmful speech.
Here's the thing - I don't see it as a lack of understanding. I see it as people are disagreeing with a legal community that still upholds allowing Nazis to terrorize Holocaust survivors as a symbol of free speech. As you pointed out, carve outs have been made to First Amendment protections on speech, and lay people see that as well - and are asking the logical question of "why not this carve out?" And the response I've seen to those questions tends to be the rather tired argument of "it's complicated." It's not surprising that's been getting rejected.
Also, as for law professors - given the number of them who never left the ivory tower, the whole "what about this case" argument strikes me as trending towards angels dancing on pinheads.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
Here's the thing - I don't see it as a lack of understanding. I see it as people are disagreeing with a legal community that still upholds allowing Nazis to terrorize Holocaust survivors as a symbol of free speech. As you pointed out, carve outs have been made to First Amendment protections on speech, and lay people see that as well - and are asking the logical question of "why not this carve out?" And the response I've seen to those questions tends to be the rather tired argument of "it's complicated." It's not surprising that's been getting rejected.
Also, as for law professors - given the number of them who never left the ivory tower, the whole "what about this case" argument strikes me as trending towards angels dancing on pinheads.
posted by NoxAeternum at 9:52 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
The ACLU used to brag about defending the KKK's First Amendment rights. They don't anymore. The far right has weaponized free speech so successfully that the rest of us have started boning up on stuff like German anti-Nazi laws and how other free societies handle similar issues.
posted by rikschell at 10:23 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 10:23 AM on September 3, 2021 [9 favorites]
There seems to be a disconnect here. There's a big difference between talking about what the First Amendment should protect and what it actually does protect under the current state of the law.
I've most been talking here about the latter. You can disagree about what should be true, but it's pretty clear that most people here don't actually have a good understanding about the state of the law.
How many Supreme Court opinions on the First Amendment have you actually read through from beginning to end? The thing about law professors is, while they may be in ivory towers, they do spend a lot of time reading through these opinions, and any decent lawprof who teaches this subject can rattle off the facts and holdings of them.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:31 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
I've most been talking here about the latter. You can disagree about what should be true, but it's pretty clear that most people here don't actually have a good understanding about the state of the law.
How many Supreme Court opinions on the First Amendment have you actually read through from beginning to end? The thing about law professors is, while they may be in ivory towers, they do spend a lot of time reading through these opinions, and any decent lawprof who teaches this subject can rattle off the facts and holdings of them.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:31 AM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
There seems to be a disconnect here. There's a big difference between talking about what the First Amendment should protect and what it actually does protect under the current state of the law.
People talking about what they expect the law to be are often stating what they want the law to be. So, there's no disconnect, but disagreement - especially when the free speech "absolutists" break out the "greater good" arguments for why a certain sort of speech causing material harm should be allowed.
How many Supreme Court opinions on the First Amendment have you actually read through from beginning to end?
Given the Court's behavior both historically and as of late, with the institution seeing fit to toss people on the street and strip women of their bodily autonomy - this isn't the winning argument you think it is. In fact, the Court tends to suffer from the same issue as legal academia, with members who tend to be insulated from the realities of life throughout their career. It's not coincidence that the one Chief Justice who was worth a damn, and whose tenure gave the Court a reputation that was wholly unearned, came to the post out of the governorship of one of the most populous states in the US.
The far right has weaponized free speech so successfully that the rest of us have started boning up on stuff like German anti-Nazi laws and how other free societies handle similar issues.
When you look at it from a distance, it becomes clear how much First Amendment dialogue is soaked in American exceptionalism.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:57 AM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
People talking about what they expect the law to be are often stating what they want the law to be. So, there's no disconnect, but disagreement - especially when the free speech "absolutists" break out the "greater good" arguments for why a certain sort of speech causing material harm should be allowed.
How many Supreme Court opinions on the First Amendment have you actually read through from beginning to end?
Given the Court's behavior both historically and as of late, with the institution seeing fit to toss people on the street and strip women of their bodily autonomy - this isn't the winning argument you think it is. In fact, the Court tends to suffer from the same issue as legal academia, with members who tend to be insulated from the realities of life throughout their career. It's not coincidence that the one Chief Justice who was worth a damn, and whose tenure gave the Court a reputation that was wholly unearned, came to the post out of the governorship of one of the most populous states in the US.
The far right has weaponized free speech so successfully that the rest of us have started boning up on stuff like German anti-Nazi laws and how other free societies handle similar issues.
When you look at it from a distance, it becomes clear how much First Amendment dialogue is soaked in American exceptionalism.
posted by NoxAeternum at 10:57 AM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
A couple of things drive me nuts when it comes to 1A. First being that there appear to be zero solutions to "propaganda from the right wing media team is actively killing people on small scales via police action, mob actions, and stochastic terrorism to say nothing of general preventable suffering amidst the living and the large scale covid deaths".
So the issue is complex and difficult to resolve? Cool, I've been hearing that for the three decades of my life as the ashes of a successful civ pile up around my feet.
Issue two is that Germany seems to, with regards to hate speech and out-Nazis, have a way of tackling this problem head on. And (forgive me I've forgotten the link) they score better than the US in terms of media and free speech.
But wait, they score better than the Us? How could that be? Let me introduce to you, issue number three:
Lefties getting their heads caved in by tear gas cans and batons at protests from WTO, through the Bush tears and NYC GOP convention of '03, occupy wall street, BLM, and a million other things I've forgotten.
Free speech under the law would be FUCKING GREAT so please understand that lefties giving free speech absolutism a withering amount of disdain do so from experience, observation, and awareness of better ways.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:03 AM on September 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
So the issue is complex and difficult to resolve? Cool, I've been hearing that for the three decades of my life as the ashes of a successful civ pile up around my feet.
Issue two is that Germany seems to, with regards to hate speech and out-Nazis, have a way of tackling this problem head on. And (forgive me I've forgotten the link) they score better than the US in terms of media and free speech.
But wait, they score better than the Us? How could that be? Let me introduce to you, issue number three:
Lefties getting their heads caved in by tear gas cans and batons at protests from WTO, through the Bush tears and NYC GOP convention of '03, occupy wall street, BLM, and a million other things I've forgotten.
Free speech under the law would be FUCKING GREAT so please understand that lefties giving free speech absolutism a withering amount of disdain do so from experience, observation, and awareness of better ways.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:03 AM on September 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
When you have a left that increasingly has reservations about the First Amendment, you know something is seriously wrong.
This reductive response is wrong and I'll explain why:
The argument for the First Amendment is that, in the Marketplace of Ideas, there wouldn't be a market for the disgraced lawyer in question that allows him to have a media career, where he can help spread and defend the deliberate spread of misinformation. His noise would be drowned out by signal. But that's not happening.
When he and Rogan and similar types can go on the news, speak openly and proudly about spreading lies, tweeting about taking quack cures, the Marketplace of Ideas is clearly not working. These individuals dominate that market — the public narrative — to the extent that their actions are amplified, not being seriously questioned, and without real consequences.
This misinformation campaign has been literally sickening and killing people for the last near-two years. So it merits asking some hard questions about the United States and what it is about its system that continues to prop this up.
And the First Amendment is very much a part of that, being used as a cover for this activity.
It isn't just absolutism over these and other rights in the Constitution, which is the underlying problem. Rather, it is this interpretation being pushed by people with vested interests — particularly political, social, economic ones — whose agendas benefit from irrational, unsafe, deadly behaviors that hurt and kill many.
Tl;dr: this lawyer and his fellow travellers have consequence-free speech and so get to use the media to push bullshit. People die and these criminals walk. Absolutism kills.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:17 PM on September 3, 2021 [11 favorites]
This reductive response is wrong and I'll explain why:
The argument for the First Amendment is that, in the Marketplace of Ideas, there wouldn't be a market for the disgraced lawyer in question that allows him to have a media career, where he can help spread and defend the deliberate spread of misinformation. His noise would be drowned out by signal. But that's not happening.
When he and Rogan and similar types can go on the news, speak openly and proudly about spreading lies, tweeting about taking quack cures, the Marketplace of Ideas is clearly not working. These individuals dominate that market — the public narrative — to the extent that their actions are amplified, not being seriously questioned, and without real consequences.
This misinformation campaign has been literally sickening and killing people for the last near-two years. So it merits asking some hard questions about the United States and what it is about its system that continues to prop this up.
And the First Amendment is very much a part of that, being used as a cover for this activity.
It isn't just absolutism over these and other rights in the Constitution, which is the underlying problem. Rather, it is this interpretation being pushed by people with vested interests — particularly political, social, economic ones — whose agendas benefit from irrational, unsafe, deadly behaviors that hurt and kill many.
Tl;dr: this lawyer and his fellow travellers have consequence-free speech and so get to use the media to push bullshit. People die and these criminals walk. Absolutism kills.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:17 PM on September 3, 2021 [11 favorites]
Given the Court's behavior both historically and as of late, with the institution seeing fit to toss people on the street and strip women of their bodily autonomy - this isn't the winning argument you think it is.
In particular because of the Court's right wing tending to impose its will via unsigned opinions via its shadow docket.
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on September 3, 2021
In particular because of the Court's right wing tending to impose its will via unsigned opinions via its shadow docket.
posted by Gelatin at 12:18 PM on September 3, 2021
Don't the vaccine manufacturers have grounds to sue the people lying about the vaccine for libel/slander? Apologies if that's a dumb question, but I can't help feeling that if people were going on Fox News saying McDonalds hamburgers make you piss blood or whatever, McDonalds lawyers would have something to say about that.
posted by rifflesby at 12:30 PM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by rifflesby at 12:30 PM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
Defamation in the US is very hard to prove for a corporation - this is why it was so surprising that Dominion had a solid case. And while there are definite benefits to how the US handles defamation as opposed to the UK, for example, the high bar has its costs as well, as we saw when Elon Musk got to skate on defamation charges.
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:35 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by NoxAeternum at 12:35 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
This method of learning how to quickly decide whether to share info on the web grew out of discovering high school and college students (and even trained historians) learned ways of evaluating websites ca. 1995 that don’t work. It won’t fix our divided reality and it won’t work with anyone who dismisses institutional knowledge, but it can give people some handy strategies for quickly make assessments by using the lateral reading strategies used by fact-checkers. Handy, but not claiming to do more than what’s on the tin.
There are a lot of scholars working on the harder problem, but this ain’t that.
As for 1A (which has been cooped by the right), I recommend Mary Anne Frank’s’ book The Cult of the Constitution, which in a nutshell argues we pay too much attention to 1 and 2 and not nearly enough to the 14th.
posted by zenzenobia at 12:58 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
There are a lot of scholars working on the harder problem, but this ain’t that.
As for 1A (which has been cooped by the right), I recommend Mary Anne Frank’s’ book The Cult of the Constitution, which in a nutshell argues we pay too much attention to 1 and 2 and not nearly enough to the 14th.
posted by zenzenobia at 12:58 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
NoxAeternum, what you've done in this thread is essentially a heckler's veto. You think the subject matter of the post is wrong-headed? That's fine. But less so is your derailing the thread into a tangentially related thing you'd rather talk about. A member here thought this was valuable enough to post, and even if you disagree you could at least muster enough generosity to leave space for the OP and other commenters who want to engage with the post for what it is.
posted by wordless reply at 1:24 PM on September 3, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by wordless reply at 1:24 PM on September 3, 2021 [5 favorites]
Given the Court's behavior both historically and as of late, with the institution seeing fit to toss people on the street and strip women of their bodily autonomy - this isn't the winning argument you think it is.kk
I'm not sure what point it is that you think I was trying to "win" there. If you want to understand what the state of constitutional law is, you have to read the Court's opinions (or else rely on someone else's take on them, which is a bit like looking at the world through someone else's glasses).
Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with it--but they make the law. It is what it is. You have the text of the First Amendment itself to go on, but it doesn't say anything about how to deal with disinformation or harmful speech, so...
posted by mikeand1 at 1:24 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure what point it is that you think I was trying to "win" there. If you want to understand what the state of constitutional law is, you have to read the Court's opinions (or else rely on someone else's take on them, which is a bit like looking at the world through someone else's glasses).
Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with it--but they make the law. It is what it is. You have the text of the First Amendment itself to go on, but it doesn't say anything about how to deal with disinformation or harmful speech, so...
posted by mikeand1 at 1:24 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
BTW, NoxAeternum -- do you think Roe v. Wade is correct? Have you ever actually read the opinion? Why, or why not? (That's a rhetorical question, I'm not trying to further derail the thread into a discussion about Roe.)
posted by mikeand1 at 1:37 PM on September 3, 2021
posted by mikeand1 at 1:37 PM on September 3, 2021
Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with it--but they make the law. It is what it is.
But it's one thing to say that the law as it is protects racist and conservative expression because unless we protect every kind of expression we don't protect any.
It's another to almost certainly more correctly note that the law protects racist and conservative expression much more, as an empirical matter, than it protects the expression of left-wing protesters, or the expression of racial, religious, or sexual minorities, because the law and the people who make and interpret the law generally like racists and conservatives much, much more than they like socialists and queer people and religions that Baptists would find "weird."
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:11 PM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
But it's one thing to say that the law as it is protects racist and conservative expression because unless we protect every kind of expression we don't protect any.
It's another to almost certainly more correctly note that the law protects racist and conservative expression much more, as an empirical matter, than it protects the expression of left-wing protesters, or the expression of racial, religious, or sexual minorities, because the law and the people who make and interpret the law generally like racists and conservatives much, much more than they like socialists and queer people and religions that Baptists would find "weird."
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:11 PM on September 3, 2021 [10 favorites]
^^ Right, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to change the law -- we should.
I'm just making a statement about how our legal system works. When it comes to interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court gets to say what it means and what rules come out of it. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion that says "the First Amendment protects speech that constitutes misinformation", then that's the law, and it has the same legal force and effect as the text of the First Amendment itself.
I'm just telling you how the system works. It goes back to Marbury v. Madison. It's an objectively true fact about the law. It's like saying "there are nine justices on the Supreme Court" -- maybe you think there should be more or less, but you can't dispute that it's currently the case.
posted by mikeand1 at 2:22 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm just making a statement about how our legal system works. When it comes to interpreting the meaning of the First Amendment, the Supreme Court gets to say what it means and what rules come out of it. If the Supreme Court issues an opinion that says "the First Amendment protects speech that constitutes misinformation", then that's the law, and it has the same legal force and effect as the text of the First Amendment itself.
I'm just telling you how the system works. It goes back to Marbury v. Madison. It's an objectively true fact about the law. It's like saying "there are nine justices on the Supreme Court" -- maybe you think there should be more or less, but you can't dispute that it's currently the case.
posted by mikeand1 at 2:22 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
We absolutely need to target children with these education campaigns, because the propagandists are targeting children as well. Like what do you think gamergate is? Or the moral panic among comics and anime fans?
It's pretty well known that people form their political beliefs in their teens and twenties. For some of these kids, they're already too far down the rabbit hole to back out gracefully. You gotta give people the tools they need, AND target the crypto markets being used to pay hackers, AND get the petro money out of politics, AND the suits on FOX news need to start promoting vaccines (which they are currently doing, even Trump). It's a multifront war.
posted by subdee at 3:47 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's pretty well known that people form their political beliefs in their teens and twenties. For some of these kids, they're already too far down the rabbit hole to back out gracefully. You gotta give people the tools they need, AND target the crypto markets being used to pay hackers, AND get the petro money out of politics, AND the suits on FOX news need to start promoting vaccines (which they are currently doing, even Trump). It's a multifront war.
posted by subdee at 3:47 PM on September 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
I teach an engineering class, and in the cirrculum there used to be a project about alternate energy sources that asked students to "use the internet to research one energy source." A few years ago I realized I could no longer teach this project, because students were presenting slides about clean coal and carbon capture technologies and why they are wonderful things that remove all the harmful byproducts from burning fossil fuels and how we'll always need to rely on oil and gas. There's so much shit on the internet these days, so much false or misleading information. Now I teach that project by first explaining how to evaluate sources and about the oil and gas industry's lobby arm. And then I give them a list of websites they are allowed to use for the project, and ask them to first evaluate the bias of any others.
Some videos like this would be the perfect thing to incorporate into that kind of school research project.
posted by subdee at 3:57 PM on September 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
Some videos like this would be the perfect thing to incorporate into that kind of school research project.
posted by subdee at 3:57 PM on September 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
If it sounds like people don't really care about what the court says the law is, MikeAnd1, it's probably because the court is allowing a theocracy-shaded minority rule wearing the trappings of liberal democracy to thrive where the majority of the country would like Just Plain Liberal Democracy Please.
And my feeling is that ends more poorly for the court and it's precious reputation/legal continuity than it does for the people who are feeling the sharp end of that legal continuity right now.
That the minority who are benefiting from weaponized misinformation also managed to pull off quite a coup (literally?) though a judicial super-legislature and then also lock it all in seemingly in the minds of legal scholars is, to put it gently, making the legal field look more Ivory Tower than the doctoral thesis mines of every other field.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:22 PM on September 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
And my feeling is that ends more poorly for the court and it's precious reputation/legal continuity than it does for the people who are feeling the sharp end of that legal continuity right now.
That the minority who are benefiting from weaponized misinformation also managed to pull off quite a coup (literally?) though a judicial super-legislature and then also lock it all in seemingly in the minds of legal scholars is, to put it gently, making the legal field look more Ivory Tower than the doctoral thesis mines of every other field.
posted by Slackermagee at 5:22 PM on September 3, 2021 [8 favorites]
^^ OK, I understand the frustration -- but there are hundreds of years of precedent -- opinions that were not issued by the current Supreme Court. The vast majority of constitutional jurisprudence was developed by prior courts, not this one. What are we supposed to do with those cases?
What about the cases you like? Are you abandoning Obergefell v Hodges, or Brown v. Board?
By the way, as a strategic matter, if your goal is to support reproductive rights, I would argue that you should take the position that Roe v. Wade is still good law. That should be our position when litigating these things in court, anyway.
posted by mikeand1 at 5:57 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
What about the cases you like? Are you abandoning Obergefell v Hodges, or Brown v. Board?
By the way, as a strategic matter, if your goal is to support reproductive rights, I would argue that you should take the position that Roe v. Wade is still good law. That should be our position when litigating these things in court, anyway.
posted by mikeand1 at 5:57 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
What we are seeing now is that while the Supreme Court can act as a Super Legislature for good, it has in the past been Very Evil and is now trending back towards that after McConnel's coup.
I am absolutely an "Ends" person. The court was useful for ameliorating Preventable Human Suffering. Now it is not.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:36 PM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
I am absolutely an "Ends" person. The court was useful for ameliorating Preventable Human Suffering. Now it is not.
posted by Slackermagee at 6:36 PM on September 3, 2021 [3 favorites]
It always saddens me when folks on the Left call for limits on free speech. Historically such schemes almost invariably end up limiting the voices of the disadvantaged and dispossessed.
posted by PhineasGage at 6:53 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 6:53 PM on September 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
^^ I agree -- people taking the position that the govt should have more power to ban speech should consider that Trump was just president, and the Republicans may well control Congress again at some point in the near future. Are these the people you want to whom you want to give more power to regulate speech?
To return to the original topic, I suspect it would be possible to craft laws dealing with covid-related misinformation that don't run afoul of current constitutional standards. It calls for some creative thinking, but it's not impossible, I'd wager. Also, even if a law prohibits protected speech, the law may be upheld if it passes strict scrutiny. The crisis that is the pandemic is definitely a compelling govt interest in that regard.
The Dems need to take a more creative approach to law-making, in my opinion. The Republicans have demonstrated a great deal of creativity in that regard... Why can't we?
And remember that we still have state court systems the Republicans don't dominate, and we have state constitutions that aren't under the U.S. Supreme Court's purview.
posted by mikeand1 at 7:22 PM on September 3, 2021
To return to the original topic, I suspect it would be possible to craft laws dealing with covid-related misinformation that don't run afoul of current constitutional standards. It calls for some creative thinking, but it's not impossible, I'd wager. Also, even if a law prohibits protected speech, the law may be upheld if it passes strict scrutiny. The crisis that is the pandemic is definitely a compelling govt interest in that regard.
The Dems need to take a more creative approach to law-making, in my opinion. The Republicans have demonstrated a great deal of creativity in that regard... Why can't we?
And remember that we still have state court systems the Republicans don't dominate, and we have state constitutions that aren't under the U.S. Supreme Court's purview.
posted by mikeand1 at 7:22 PM on September 3, 2021
The disadvantaged and dispossessed won what rights they/we have through very hard struggle and solidarity and community organizing, mostly during times when courts were very much stacked against them and their voices were specifically, sometimes explicitly, excluded from coverage under the First Amendment. Eg. labor unions were illegal until working folks had already won some other important battles. Speaking out against the World Wars was heavily restricted, and many socialists and communists were jailed and/or deported for doing so (on top of that whole Japanese internment camp thing). Black Americans were restricted from civic and political participation by various Jim Crow laws (as well as organized extra-judicial terror and violence from white people in positions of power). Obscenity laws were applied to depictions and descriptions of homosexuality, and to distribution of materials educating women about family planning. Historically, First Amendment free speech rights have been asserted only by groups that have attained some necessary degree of political or economic power.
posted by eviemath at 7:25 PM on September 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 7:25 PM on September 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
Not only the actually existing history of free speech being "free for me but not for thee", but also a reminder that classical liberalism called for limitations on freedoms when it encroaches on that of others. That is, America's sacred cow was never taken seriously in the first place.
posted by polymodus at 3:32 AM on September 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 3:32 AM on September 4, 2021 [3 favorites]
After all of these grand, abstract arguments that we need some limits on some speech, I would really like to hear a specific, real-world proposal for what such a scheme would look like. Seriously, who is going to be in the star chamber deciding what's permissible speech and writing? How will they be selected? What will the specific rules be? How will they be enforced? Please show your work.
posted by PhineasGage at 7:03 AM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 7:03 AM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Very Serious People: Leftwing campus cancel culture will be the death of America.
Republican Christofascists: We've killed America.
VSP: They, um, they they they um learned it from Middlebury student tactics.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:19 AM on September 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Republican Christofascists: We've killed America.
VSP: They, um, they they they um learned it from Middlebury student tactics.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 7:19 AM on September 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
I'm going to be abstract, too. I'm concerned that the machinery of censorship can be repurposed to block any message.
Even granting that it's worth stopping some communications, does anyone have ideas about limiting censorship?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:26 AM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
Even granting that it's worth stopping some communications, does anyone have ideas about limiting censorship?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 8:26 AM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
people taking the position that the govt should have more power to ban speech should consider that Trump was just president, and the Republicans may well control Congress again at some point in the near future. Are these the people you want to whom you want to give more power to regulate speech?
The extremist GOP is weaponizing misinformation with the end game of seizing permanent control of the federal government. If they control the Executive and the Congress as well as SCOTUS, do you really think they're going to care about legal limits to their power to regulate speech?
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:50 AM on September 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
The extremist GOP is weaponizing misinformation with the end game of seizing permanent control of the federal government. If they control the Executive and the Congress as well as SCOTUS, do you really think they're going to care about legal limits to their power to regulate speech?
posted by Lyme Drop at 8:50 AM on September 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
So what are you proposing, Lyme Drop?
posted by PhineasGage at 9:05 AM on September 4, 2021
posted by PhineasGage at 9:05 AM on September 4, 2021
This whole 1A derail was apparently started by the unsubstantiated claim that "[the] left . . . increasingly has reservations about the First Amendment[.]"
Instead of insisting on detailed proposals in order to address these insinuations, maybe we could start by figuring out exactly what was meant by the original claim? Because I'm a little at sea.
FWIW, existing law already makes a mockery of the words "freedom of speech" (just to take a random example, I can't even talk about nonviolent dispute resolution to the Wrong People without federal criminal liability, and existing case law also grants broad exemptions from "freedom of speech" for schools and prisons under a rationale that I would summarize as "since these institutions as they exist are clearly incompatible with a free society, we'll just have to give them a pass"). Proposals to impose some sort of culpability for deliberate misinformation would seem to be much more moderate than these limitations that the Court has long since upheld.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:52 AM on September 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Instead of insisting on detailed proposals in order to address these insinuations, maybe we could start by figuring out exactly what was meant by the original claim? Because I'm a little at sea.
FWIW, existing law already makes a mockery of the words "freedom of speech" (just to take a random example, I can't even talk about nonviolent dispute resolution to the Wrong People without federal criminal liability, and existing case law also grants broad exemptions from "freedom of speech" for schools and prisons under a rationale that I would summarize as "since these institutions as they exist are clearly incompatible with a free society, we'll just have to give them a pass"). Proposals to impose some sort of culpability for deliberate misinformation would seem to be much more moderate than these limitations that the Court has long since upheld.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:52 AM on September 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
But it is surprising that some people seem to have suggested that laws against misinformation are needed without actually justifying that. Pointing out that the government has historically been unfair and censorious, while important, is not truly justification for new misinformation laws. The fact that our world is turning extremist and fascist is not justification either. Only a neoliberal elite Democrat would use these as justifications, and their motivations are obvious. And "laws against harmful speech" looks and sounds nothing like actual hate speech laws of the sort in Canada or Germany, unless I've misunderstood this newer sentiment.
posted by polymodus at 10:24 AM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by polymodus at 10:24 AM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
I would really like to hear a specific, real-world proposal for what such a scheme would look like.
Fine. Just as you don't have an absolute 1A right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, let's say you don't get to promote pool cleaner, horse dewormer, or other deadly quack medicines, for instance, during a pandemic.
And that should also apply double to media companies making money from assisted manslaughter, including FOX News and Facebook, among others.
If you think the 1A should be a golden ticket to consequence-free speech for some, let's see you show your work.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:29 PM on September 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
Fine. Just as you don't have an absolute 1A right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, let's say you don't get to promote pool cleaner, horse dewormer, or other deadly quack medicines, for instance, during a pandemic.
And that should also apply double to media companies making money from assisted manslaughter, including FOX News and Facebook, among others.
If you think the 1A should be a golden ticket to consequence-free speech for some, let's see you show your work.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:29 PM on September 4, 2021 [8 favorites]
I'm not proposing anything, PhineasGage. I have opinions but don't pretend to be an expert. I'm pointing out the emptiness of the "extremists might later restrict our speech if we restrict their speech today" argument. The extremists have been making it very clear that they want to strip away the rights and silence the voices of those they don't like regardless of what the Constitution and established law have to say about it. If they control the federal government that will accelerate regardless of whether their speech is regulated today.
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:07 PM on September 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Lyme Drop at 1:07 PM on September 4, 2021 [6 favorites]
It seems the American 1st Amendment absolutist position (at least in this topic) is basically saying it's NOT okay to trick people into giving you their bank account information in order to get their money, but it is okay to trick people into giving money to your political campaign or fake medical treatment.
posted by FJT at 2:14 PM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by FJT at 2:14 PM on September 4, 2021 [1 favorite]
In my local sub many commenters are just fed up with antivaxx misinformation and pseudoprotesters. So I think this whole implication of, the left ought to be more militant now, up to and including more authoritarian institutional measures, has that highly charged context of late. Critique of vaccine passports is taboo, for example.
Not quite the same but nevertheless reminds me of an old dynamic that's been always been happening with the left left, you have the more militant groups clamoring for authoritarian or revolutionary measures in order to solve the crisis.
posted by polymodus at 2:35 PM on September 4, 2021
Not quite the same but nevertheless reminds me of an old dynamic that's been always been happening with the left left, you have the more militant groups clamoring for authoritarian or revolutionary measures in order to solve the crisis.
posted by polymodus at 2:35 PM on September 4, 2021
Any kind of existential or even major crises will result in one group wanting to adhere to the way things are/were and the other wanting to change things.
posted by FJT at 2:49 PM on September 4, 2021
posted by FJT at 2:49 PM on September 4, 2021
The battle of wills over "freedom" is tired. There is no freedom. Not for Republicans, not for evangelicals, not for antivaxxers, not for Democrats and Communists, not for AOC. The idea of "freedom" as a noun and "free" as an adjective are just the biggest canards that both serve as a foundation for the Big Lies. The existence of laws and the legal system itself are already "freedom minus one."
There's a kind of reverse Sapir-Whorf going on where people ("influencers" in abstract) use imprecise but specific language in hopes that people will match it to some feeling they already have, that they're supplying a name for something that isn't "freedom," but there's a whole bunch of people who see a whole bunch of different feelings as threats to freedom. I keep thinking of Frank Zappa's lyric, "Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing."
Freedom to Alex Jones? Benefitting from vitamin scams and constant ego stroking. Freedom to Stephen Miller? A white-power society and no consequences for his actions. Freedom to some nobody could be skipping the Electrician apprenticeship that is preventing him from striking out on his own and exercising his freedom to charge $140/hr for shoddy work. Freedom to another, putting the cancer colors back into M&Ms. Freedom to a lot of men of all stripes? Freedom to have sex with whoever they want, regardless of age.
Think about every complaint...all of it exhorted under the umbrella of "freedom under threat." Thereby a demagogue only has to use the word "freedom" and whatever vague pseudoviolent descriptions of preserving "freedom" and everybody just slots their own Mad Libs responses into the pauses in some demagogue's speech. "Freedom" is a glass fish bowl, and each person's interests are the marbles that fill it up. If the demagogues were specific about the politics they want, the fish bowl would shrink.
None of this moves the ball in either direction on the field though, and frankly I think we're getting to a point of forcing a First Amendment crisis by ACT-UPing the evangelicals in the churches where they plan to take over school boards in order to kill public schools (among many other things). After all, there's no law that saysa dog can't play basketball I can't yell in a church, and why would they infringe my freedom?
posted by rhizome at 4:16 PM on September 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
There's a kind of reverse Sapir-Whorf going on where people ("influencers" in abstract) use imprecise but specific language in hopes that people will match it to some feeling they already have, that they're supplying a name for something that isn't "freedom," but there's a whole bunch of people who see a whole bunch of different feelings as threats to freedom. I keep thinking of Frank Zappa's lyric, "Free is when you don't have to pay for nothing or do nothing."
Freedom to Alex Jones? Benefitting from vitamin scams and constant ego stroking. Freedom to Stephen Miller? A white-power society and no consequences for his actions. Freedom to some nobody could be skipping the Electrician apprenticeship that is preventing him from striking out on his own and exercising his freedom to charge $140/hr for shoddy work. Freedom to another, putting the cancer colors back into M&Ms. Freedom to a lot of men of all stripes? Freedom to have sex with whoever they want, regardless of age.
Think about every complaint...all of it exhorted under the umbrella of "freedom under threat." Thereby a demagogue only has to use the word "freedom" and whatever vague pseudoviolent descriptions of preserving "freedom" and everybody just slots their own Mad Libs responses into the pauses in some demagogue's speech. "Freedom" is a glass fish bowl, and each person's interests are the marbles that fill it up. If the demagogues were specific about the politics they want, the fish bowl would shrink.
None of this moves the ball in either direction on the field though, and frankly I think we're getting to a point of forcing a First Amendment crisis by ACT-UPing the evangelicals in the churches where they plan to take over school boards in order to kill public schools (among many other things). After all, there's no law that says
posted by rhizome at 4:16 PM on September 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
Oklahoma hospitals deluged by ivermectin overdoses, doctor says
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:36 PM on September 4, 2021
“The [emergency rooms] are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated.This isn't left or right or even about the 1A. This is a health crisis caused by deliberate malicious acts of misinformation, and proponents of "alternative cures" need to go to prison.
“Ambulances are stuck at the hospital waiting for a bed to open so they can take the patient in and they don’t have any, that’s it."
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 8:36 PM on September 4, 2021
Oklahoma's hospital inundation is a hoax.
posted by rhizome at 9:28 PM on September 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 9:28 PM on September 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
So.... given that we're now citing hoaxes as truth in this thread, maybe lets refocus on applying techniques from the OP to overcome our own confirmation bias?
posted by pwnguin at 11:09 PM on September 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by pwnguin at 11:09 PM on September 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
If it is a hoax, it is also being reported in the New York Times.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:11 PM on September 4, 2021
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 11:11 PM on September 4, 2021
According to the statement from Northeastern Health System Sequoyah interpreted above as evidence of a hoax, "Dr. Jason McElyea [the doctor reporting hospital overload due to ivermectin abuse in Oklahoma] is not an employee of NHS Sequoyah, he is affiliated with a medical staffing group that provides coverage for our emergency room".
Seems to me that a doctor working for a medical staffing group that provides coverage for NHS Sequoyah's emergency room would be working multiple EDs and would therefore be well placed to see things in some of those that Sequoyah (whose statement refers to "our emergency room", singular) isn't seeing at theirs. So I'm not ready to jump on the "it's a hoax" bandwagon just yet.
As one of the Facebook comments responding to the NHS Sequoyah statement says: "Good! It's nice to see at least one town where people aren't desperate enough to self-medicate with horse supplies. Now what about the rest of the hospitals in the state?"
posted by flabdablet at 12:04 AM on September 5, 2021
Seems to me that a doctor working for a medical staffing group that provides coverage for NHS Sequoyah's emergency room would be working multiple EDs and would therefore be well placed to see things in some of those that Sequoyah (whose statement refers to "our emergency room", singular) isn't seeing at theirs. So I'm not ready to jump on the "it's a hoax" bandwagon just yet.
As one of the Facebook comments responding to the NHS Sequoyah statement says: "Good! It's nice to see at least one town where people aren't desperate enough to self-medicate with horse supplies. Now what about the rest of the hospitals in the state?"
posted by flabdablet at 12:04 AM on September 5, 2021
It could well be a hoax, but if it is, it is one that is widespread:
Health experts keep warning against using ivermectin as a Covid treatment. Some Americans refuse to listen
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:29 AM on September 5, 2021
Health experts keep warning against using ivermectin as a Covid treatment. Some Americans refuse to listen
A doctor in rural Oklahoma says hospitals are backed up with patients who have overdosed on veterinary ivermectin, an anti-parasite medication. Mississippi’s health department said that 70 percent of recent calls to the state poison control center in August came from people who ingested ivermectin from livestock supply stores.Further, after what happened to Dr. Ming Lin, I am also wary of taking a corporate PR statement on face value.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that a person had an “altered mental status” after apparently taking five pills of ivermectin — that he had purchased on the internet — daily for five days. Another person drank an ivermectin formula intended for cattle and was hospitalized for nine days with tremors and hallucinations.
Three inmates in a jail in northwest Arkansas told The Associated Press that they were unknowingly given ivermectin among their Covid medications.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:29 AM on September 5, 2021
I don’t have time to find the links, but the legal idea of collective defamation/libel as a framework for regulating hate speech without throwing out general freedom of speech has been linked to and described multiple times here on Metafilter. Most countries with free speech rights also have laws against false advertising, as well, but those have been weakened considerably in the US since the beginning of the 1980s. (Recall that something is not defamation if it is true - or if it’s about a large enough corporation with deep enough pockets in the case of gag orders on eg. reporting about conditions in factory farms and meat processing plants, but that’s an unjust limitation on free speech that we’re currently living with regardless). The removal of the Fairness Doctrine is often pointed to as enabling the rise of mid/dis-informative (primarily right wing) radio and tv networks and shows, as well, yet I haven’t seen arguments that the Fairness Doctrine was antithetical to the principle of free speech or was a slippery slope to authoritarianism. I expect someone, somewhere has made such arguments, but as I understand it the arguments for throwing out the Fairness Doctrine were something about “unfair” business regulations rather than free speech. Them there’s the Citizen’s United decision, which was ostensibly about free speech rights, but I’m not at all worried that reversing that decision and returning to requiring public accountability for political contributions, not treating corporations as people, and not equating spending money with speech might be slippery slopes to authoritarianism. So there’s a couple specific proposals that would help address disinformation, for those who were asking.
posted by eviemath at 5:36 AM on September 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 5:36 AM on September 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
In Argentina, a leader of a movement touting toxic bleach as a 'miracle' COVID-19 cure has been charged following a 5-year-old boy's death. The charges are "illegal practice of the medical profession and selling fake medicines."
posted by PhineasGage at 5:59 AM on September 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 5:59 AM on September 5, 2021 [3 favorites]
One of the things we know is that most of the “disinformation dozen” who originate a significant part of pandemic-related disinformation are making money off of their false claims, so stronger legal requirements that if you are selling a product then you have to be truthful in any claims you make about your or your competitors’ products would be a targeted, limited restriction.
posted by eviemath at 6:10 AM on September 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 6:10 AM on September 5, 2021 [5 favorites]
It could well be a hoax, but if it is, it is one that is widespread
The sentence on hospitals in Oklahoma is no longer present in the NY Times piece at the time I’m writing this comment.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:32 AM on September 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
The sentence on hospitals in Oklahoma is no longer present in the NY Times piece at the time I’m writing this comment.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:32 AM on September 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
There's a bit in Jeffrey Rosen's "The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America" about whether we need online defamation laws, and if we had them, how to prevent them from being used as a hammer against the vulnernable and leading to an atmosphere of online fear and paranoia where everyone is afraid to say anything in case they get sued for it. Let me see if I can find it.
Here's an excerpt I had saved:
”Law is too clumsy an instrument to protect individuals from false statements in cyberspace except in the most egregious cases, and there would be serious risks to freedom of speech if individual cybergossips had to fear being bankrupted by libel judgments every time they took to the keyboard. Nevertheless, if one of the purposes of libel law is [to reintegrate the person who was falsely accused back into the community], it’s not clear that cybergossip should be completely unregulated. In a truly extreme case involving cyberlibel against a private figure, perhaps a declaratory judgement that wrongdoing has occurred (rather than ruinous punitive damages), would be an appropriate way of acknowledging the victim’s injury, and correcting the impression, without inhibiting the free flow of ideas. (pg 191)
It's not exactly what we've been talking about, but it's discussing this issue of people being able to say absolutely anything they want online, including false things that harm other people, with no real lasting legal consequences. And also the issue that if you start making this a punishable crime, citizens might try to get their "neighbors" arrested and score-settle, which would of course effect vulnerable people with no legal protection much more.
The book was written in 2000, there's a lot of discussion of things we take for granted now, but in 2000 there was still a lot of argument about how the internet should be run, etc. It's really interesting, I recommend it. Sometimes the law isn't the best way to handle these kinds of conflicts, but, at the same time, it's a serious problem for our whole society that people are being deliberately lied to, poisoned, and fleeced online and there's no (strong & enforced) laws protecting them the way they are protected in physical space.
Also like I said above, since I am teaching high school it's making me really aware of the scope of this problem. Teenagers who have never been on the "educational" web and only on the "commercial" web, there's a lag in how we teach these topics in school, a lot of older teaching materials still treats the web as a reliable source and asks students to do "research" online for projects. But then they come across the misinformation FIRST before they find anything reliable. And it's going to get worse if we don't do anything about it.
posted by subdee at 6:31 PM on September 6, 2021
Here's an excerpt I had saved:
”Law is too clumsy an instrument to protect individuals from false statements in cyberspace except in the most egregious cases, and there would be serious risks to freedom of speech if individual cybergossips had to fear being bankrupted by libel judgments every time they took to the keyboard. Nevertheless, if one of the purposes of libel law is [to reintegrate the person who was falsely accused back into the community], it’s not clear that cybergossip should be completely unregulated. In a truly extreme case involving cyberlibel against a private figure, perhaps a declaratory judgement that wrongdoing has occurred (rather than ruinous punitive damages), would be an appropriate way of acknowledging the victim’s injury, and correcting the impression, without inhibiting the free flow of ideas. (pg 191)
It's not exactly what we've been talking about, but it's discussing this issue of people being able to say absolutely anything they want online, including false things that harm other people, with no real lasting legal consequences. And also the issue that if you start making this a punishable crime, citizens might try to get their "neighbors" arrested and score-settle, which would of course effect vulnerable people with no legal protection much more.
The book was written in 2000, there's a lot of discussion of things we take for granted now, but in 2000 there was still a lot of argument about how the internet should be run, etc. It's really interesting, I recommend it. Sometimes the law isn't the best way to handle these kinds of conflicts, but, at the same time, it's a serious problem for our whole society that people are being deliberately lied to, poisoned, and fleeced online and there's no (strong & enforced) laws protecting them the way they are protected in physical space.
Also like I said above, since I am teaching high school it's making me really aware of the scope of this problem. Teenagers who have never been on the "educational" web and only on the "commercial" web, there's a lag in how we teach these topics in school, a lot of older teaching materials still treats the web as a reliable source and asks students to do "research" online for projects. But then they come across the misinformation FIRST before they find anything reliable. And it's going to get worse if we don't do anything about it.
posted by subdee at 6:31 PM on September 6, 2021
It’s funny, I remember teaching intro composition and research in the mid 1990s as a TA, a few years after the internet really took off but waaaaaay before Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. We were told by some of our supervising profs to drum it into the students’ heads that “the internet” was unreliable and they should not use it for research. That quickly became outdated advice, obviously, when reliable academic sources were putting their articles on the internet. Then the task became teaching them to figure out the difference between reliable and unreliable…which as you point out has not become any easier.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:12 AM on September 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 11:12 AM on September 8, 2021 [3 favorites]
« Older 'A Loveable Anarchist': The Oral History of Mr... | Whatever Kind Of Mood You're In Tonight Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
- Fact checking
- Lateral reading
- Who can you trust?
- Using Wikipedia
- Evaluating evidence
- Evaluating photos and videos
- Data and infographics
- Click restraint
- Social media
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 1:55 PM on September 2, 2021 [2 favorites]