Why is banning fake news bad?
What about The Onion? Or The Daily Show? Are we going to ban sarcasm as in North Korea? Isn't political sarcasm one of the foundations of US? Satire and parody are important forms of political commentary that rely on blurring the line between truth and outrageousness. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that a statement is an opinion that merits protection when it is (1) about a matter of public concern, (2) expressed in a way that makes it hard to prove whether it is true or false, and (3) can't be reasonably interpreted to be a factual statement about someone.
I think fake news is okay, in itself, if one can distinguish between what is real and what is meant to be sarcasm. Unfortunately, many people are incapable, it seems, of making the distinction between truth and reality.
Because you can't have freedom of speech and banning of fake news. They go hand and glove. Who is to determine what is fake news? That is the problem. It is up to each individual to discern who to read and who to trust with your news source. Over time, you will be smart enough to learn who are the honest brokers and who is an activist trying to spin the news or worst provide fake news.
In times past, we could rely on the main street media to be somewhat honest and even handed. That is no longer the case. The media has become one of the sources of fake news. It applies to what they choose to cover and report or not.
At the end of the day, don't trust but verify. Do the homework and you won't be so easily fooled.
It depends on what is considered fake news. The Left is ultimately going to be labeling all conservative right wing stuff as fake so as to deceive multitudes.
Who be the judge of what's fake and what's not. Msm often goes into witch hunt or wag their tail to corporate interests!
I don't think, a news becomes gospel truth if it comes via CNN or BBC or RT etc...the more perspectives we have, the better.
One may argue that so called fake news sway the opinions or influence gullibles but in reterospective msm has been doing exactly that and most probably in the current situation they feel threatened.
I believe your premise with the SCOTUS is a little less applicable than might meet the eye.
Those guidelines are for defamation. That would not be a prior restraint or banning which is the pop term de jour. That is about what kind of wrong things we can say about each other and privately, not government, be sued for.
If I say "I have nothing to back this up, but, in my opinion ptosis is a horses ass". You cannot sue me for my opinion clearly proclaimed. Because I make it clear that it is factual as to my stupid opinion.
Freedom of speech really revolves around the notion of making no law to abridge it. Kind of like this, a guy is using his free speech to burn the flag, that, at this time is not criminal anywhere in the US. But the dumb sob lights a tree on fire. Well in a way the burning becomes illegal.
Back in about '98 some hard core regimes really tried hard to get the internet protocol and policy wogs to ban certain speech. In other words to deny access to the internet if the language ran afoul of the free speech "bans" in their country. Thin Vietnam and China. Little commies.
They lost. But for instance up to just a bit ago at least, Vietnam FB was a closed loop.
A real cool movie on these lines is "Absence of Malice".
Here is a funny thought -- CBS can ban fake news, New York cannot. I can set filters at home, my state cannot.
Think child porn. It really is an act and not speech. And yet the SCOTUS has only gone so far as to say "I cannot define pornography but I know it when I see it".Some justice named James Potter I believe.
Banning is a funny in an almost silly way.
And here is the ulitmate irony; all the crap about banning fake news,, get ready... is fake news.
This is just a fascinating area. I did my doctoral thesis on the state's right to ban porno and nudey places. They simply could not constitutionally do it as it was speech. So they zoned against it. Like churches need to be off maintstreet. Thanks.
I think a lot of people are confused about what is, and isn't fake news.
The Onion is satire, and clearly labelled as such.
The Daily Show is comedy, and airs on Comedy Central.
These shows are entertainment, not news. They don't pretend to be presenting news. Their focus is making us laugh.
Fake news, on the other hand, is designed to lie or deceive us into believing something that simply isn't true. It has no basis in fact. It's just stuff someone made up, for clicks, or ad revenue, or for malicious purposes. Two fake news stories from this year:
* Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza shop.
* Thousands of people at a Donald Trump rally in Manhattan chanted, "We hate Muslims, we hate blacks, we want our great country back."
Both stories are complete lies. They simply didn't happen. Someone made them up, and posted them as news.
News should be factual, research-based stories. They should be verified by credible sources.
Having said that, everyone is allowed to have an opinion. You're allowed to say "I think Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of that pizza shop". But you shouldn't present your opinion as news. It should be clearly labeled as opinion or editorial content, or satire, or humor---because it's not factual, and it's not research-based.
We should just go back to calling things what they really are, rather than calling every stupid, misguided piece of writing on the Internet news.
Yes, I agree. It is up to the reader to discern what is news and what is satire and what is spin and what is lie...unfortunately, some people think the daily show is news...
If you want fake news, look no further than The Daily News. Shaun King, biggest race hustler of all time, king of passing off unchecked hearsay as real.
The entire premise of "fake news" has ballooned into something larger than life; not because it's suddenly new, but because its being used as one of the multiple reasons why Mrs. Clinton was beaten in the Presidential election. If she'd have won, it would be business as usual and we'd be talking about something else.
Credibility has been a factor for the media for many years, and as the sensationalistic "journalism" we see being employed by many of those same outlets increases, the common man and woman are finally starting to see the real motivations.
The biggest issue will be the so-called "fact checkers." We've seen attempts to use Snopes and Politfact as a way to validate an opinion on a certain topic. When the fact checkers are partisan, then it really doesn't benefit many people.
I don't think anyone can actually ban fake news, or anything else for that matter. People can call out the hoaxes quickly, but actually stopping a "news" site or any other site from publishing what they want (within legal reasons) would be a violation of free speech rights.
A joke is only funny if people know it's a joke. There is a difference between an outrageous opinion and a false fact.
The trouble is in interpreting what is fact and what is fiction. Who gets to say which is which? Can free speech be free if it’s censored? Should we give the government more opportunities to define our constitutional rights? It’s one thing to have the courts define our rights it’s another to allow our officials the opportunity to decide who gets what rights and how they can use them. We need to think long term when it comes to our rights. Today we are heading into a republican administration four to eight years from now we may see something different. Protecting the rights of the people you don’t trust or like will also protect your own rights.
It’s unfortunate that many will watch or read fake news (or politically biased news) and see it as fact. I remember hearing somewhere (I don’t remember where) that most of the 18 to 25-year-olds where getting their “news” from John Stewart’s Daily show (as if it was non-bias and factual).
If the government decides that fake news is whatever information that they want to ban from people, then the freedom of speech will be taken away. That's why it's bad.
by James Smith4 years ago
http://stateofthemedia.org/2013/special … landscape/Note for fans of Fox News that will almost certainly jump on this:Please stop watching it, it's still awful.This survey comprehensively analysed the changing...
by Sanket Chavan15 months ago
Policy of restricting people from expressing themselves freely has been widely implemented by the developing countries of the world but has USA begun walking on that path?
by Credence212 months ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So...
by A B Williams9 months ago
Tuned into the News this morning, first Story;a man, Oscar Lopez Rivera, involved in over 100 bombings across America, was being Honored in a Parade...on American soil.2nd Story; A Play, Shakespeare...
by Tim Mitchell6 months ago
Isn't Fake News as old as propaganda? Is it just a name change? Is there a difference?
by TMMason6 years ago
-"ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (The Blaze/AP) — A state district judge Thursday ordered an Alamogordo man to immediately take down a billboard that implies his ex-girlfriend had an abortion.As we reported earlier this month,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.