You know, simply put, there needs to be an adverse consequence for politicians who

[Atticus]

so brazenly lie to the American people.

In the past, our social and political systems essentially depended on personal shame and societal shunning to deter and punish liars. Now, we have a cadre of virtually shameless ideologues in office and a willfully ignorant segment of voters determined to reward them for their mendacity.

I understand that we would not want to totally silence these dishonest operatives, but as long as political power merchants like McConnell can have access to our TV screens to insist that the filibuster has "no ties" to racism, or words to that effect, we will not have the true educated populace upon which our democracy depends.

Aside from "voting them out" years in the future, can no remedy be fashioned for willful lying and a political tactic?

[Karma13612]

1. I will defer

To our outstanding cadre of sociology and political scholars here at DU.

Bookmarked!

[Roy Rolling]

2. Limits

There should be limits to so-called free speech. Political speech isn’t free speech, it is bought and paid for.

Politicians who want a double-meaning language will object. They operate in the fringes of English language definitions and syntax.

[wnylib]

12. Setting additional limits on free speech is

Last edited Wed Mar 24, 2021, 11:31 AM - Edit history (1)

a slippery slope. There already are free speech limits against inciting violence, slander and libel, lying unfer oath, or saying things that can cause physical harm, like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

We need to do a better job of educating people to spot lies and to use critical reasoning in the sources they seek out. It used to be done in schools.

Meantime, to combat lying politicians, we could hold them up to public ridicule, which comedians do pretty well. Call out the lies, and name the method of lie they are using, e.g. false premise, red herring, etc. Unfortunately, the Trump administration showed us that we can't rely on the media to be discerning fact checkers. It might be good for journalism courses to teach interview techniques for exposing lies. I never took a journalism course. Maybe it is taught and just not used on the job.

The solution is a culture change, I think. Stop accepting everything we hear without questioning dubious statements. Emphasize the difference between fact and opinion, or interpretation of facts. Maybe we should have a quiz show where contestants compete for prizes in identifying the faulty reasoning in statements or recognizing categories to put a statement in, like hyperbole or unequal comparisons. The questions or statements need not be political ones. Better if they were everyday types of ststements. Popularize discernment. We sure have enough shows that popularize other things, like competition for dates. Why not popularize fact or fiction skills?

[Trust_Reality]

20. A quiz show to ID faulty reasoning or conclusions, etc. What a great idea.

Incidentally, I think the concept of a "slippery slope" might be faulty reasoning.

[wnylib]

44. ??

[azureblue]

34. "it's not "Free speech"

It's called truth and integrity. Somethign Goopers have an aversion to. And it is a basic requirement of leadership. If you don't have it then you have no business in government. The founding fathers assumed that leaders would be men of honesty, forthrightness and integrity, men of knowledge who told the truth. They had no idea that liars like the GOp would take control of the government and make lying acceptable.

[wnylib]

53. I agree with you about the qualities

of leadership and that today's Republicans lack them.

But, the nation's founders did anticipate the possibility of demagogues trying to take control of the government and a establish a dictatorship. It's why Franklin answered, when asked what form of government we had "A republic, if you can keep it." It's why the writers of the constitution established an electoral college, in the hope and belief that "upstanding citizens" would choose better than the masses of common people. They could not anticipate 200+ years in advance that the electoral college itself would become a tool of demagogues, or that automated machines would enter into elections.

The founders very much feared the damage that populists could do and tried to put safeguards into the constitution. The electoral college is outmoded and detrimental to maintaining the republic now and should be abolished. Since that requires a constitutional amendment, it's an uphill battle to do it.

[Bev54]

37. Since when does free speech allow for outright lies to mislead the populace

So what, the teachers in school can teach whatever they believe because it is free speech? I think not.

[CaptainTruth]

49. Since December 15, 1791

As for schools, consider Catholic schools or Islamic schools etc. Teachers do teach whatever they believe, every day.

It's a complicated issue with no easy answers.

[wnylib]

50. If teachers do that, they can be fired.

So, what's your point? Do you think there should be laws to criminalize lies? Which lies? White lies,like "Sure, I like your new haircut"?

In the case of a school, besides firing a teacher for teaching lies (which happened in my public school when I was in 4th grade), there are accreditation boards that will not give accreditation to substandard schools. And what about the Scopes trial in the 1920s in Tennessee, where a teacher was fired for teaching the "lie" about human evolution?

There already are numerous laws regarding honesty and lies. Truth in lending law requires lenders to disclose interest rates and fees on loans. Perjury is against the law. If somebody lies about being single and marries a woman (or man) when he/she already has a spouse, that's illegal. Slander and libel are illegal. It is illegal to lie or misrepresent yourself on tax forms. It is illegal to use false ID, claiming to be someone you aren't.

There are many more examples of laws against lying. That's what fraud laws are all about.

In the case of legislators lying about an election result in order to overturn an election, there are some laws that might address that. I am not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer, so I can't say how that would work. If laws are needed to specifically address that issue, one problem is that the laws are made by the legislators.

[CaptainTruth]

52. No, not "fire in a crowded theater" again. That's a myth.

It basically refers to a 1919 case that was partially overturned in 1969 (the famous Brandenburg v Ohio).

If you follow @BadLegalTakes on Twitter you'll see that one regularly appearing as a bad legal take, sometimes followed by a 1st Amendment attorney or law professor posting a gif of a guy banging his head on a table.

From Wikipedia:

The phrase is a paraphrasing of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

You can even buy the T-shirt!



https://techdirt.creator-spring.com/listing/pro-tip?

Thank you for attending my TED talk.

[Roy Rolling]

56. Love It!

People who are educated to never, under any condition yell “fire” are more likely to remain silent when the theater burns down.

They may be nice people to sit next to, but I wouldn’t put my life in their hands. Or voice.

They are dangerously conditioned by propaganda to “vote” against their own interest. They’ll check to see if they are on fire before warning others.

[DownriverDem]

22. Bring back

the FCC Fairness Doctrine where both sides have to be presented to the people. Let us decide.

[CaptainTruth]

51. One that's not just for broadcast! That's the only way it would be effective.

The original Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast because the govt owns the electromagnetic broadcast spectrum & leases frequencies to broadcasters. Because the govt owned the distribution method (the broadcast frequencies) they could impose regulations like the Fairness Doctrine.

It does not cover cable or internet/streaming distribution, which is how the majority of people receive the majority of their content (programming, news, etc).

And that's the fatal flaw of the Fairness Doctrine in its current form, it applies only to one method of DISTRIBUTION (broadcast), as opposed to applying to the CONTENT, regardless of distribution method.

We need a content-focussed distribution-method-independent version of the Fairness Doctrine if it's to do any good at all.

[usaf-vet]

24. My post from another thread.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=647672

[Demsrule86]

35. No limits on free speech...I can only imagine how the GOP would subvert this...there is little we

can do but create our own media which we should have done years ago and fight it.

[wnylib]

54. I fully agree about the need to create

our own media.

[CaptainTruth]

47. I wish class action lawsuits could be brought against those who outright lie.

Unfortunately, if you understand the requirements for such suits, like showing harm (to have standing) & proving malice, it's often difficult to win them.

[joetheman]

3. "free speech" for most of them means they have a right to lie. nt

[dickthegrouch]

55. My post from another thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15264757

[Trueblue Texan]

4. Compounding the problem...

...is that so many people truly want the lies the liars are telling. Sometimes when I think of our political imbalances I am reminded of species that become too specialized then die out. That's what it feels like is happening. Huge coalitions of people who don't want to know beyond what they believe are forming, firming the walls of their beliefs so that no other information gets in. They are willing to risk Democracy, freedom, and in the end, their lives and the lives of their families to hold onto their position and beliefs.

[jaxexpat]

16. Very intellectually tantalizing parallelism you've made there Trueblue Texan.

"Sometimes when I think of our political imbalances I am reminded of species that become too specialized then die out." It subsumes the current political ecology with a twist I hadn't thought or heard of yet. It acknowledges that this cannot continue without some sort of resolution and makes one guess to which strategy presents the likeliest path to survivability.

Questions to ponder:
Have only THEY evolved into special non-viability?
Have they contaminated the environment for all, leaving everyone only subsistence on a plague planet where few nurture immunity?
Have they intentionally distilled the toxicity in an otherwise healthy environment to the point that NO other political species can exist?
In other words, have they poisoned only themselves or are ALL now incapable of surviving in this damaged democracy they've created?

And then there's this:
Is the environment capable of adapting while allowing us to evolve past this? Or is popular extinction the only key to repair?

Asking for a friend who says he doesn't want to see WWIII.

[CrackityJones75]

17. Boy howdy are you right.

I have a neighbor who is a conservative. Our kids are buddies so we get together every now and again and he i variably tries to talk about politics with me. When I present facts and reason he responds with, and usually emotionally: “I don’t believe that! That isn’t my belief” as though that changes the facts. He is an educated man and is quite smart but refuses to accept fact and incorporate that into his “beliefs”.

[2Gingersnaps]

27. And there is no reasoning with that,

because reasoning was the first thing removed.

[CrackityJones75]

42. Exactly!

[Snackshack]

40. I know several people like this...

The beautiful thing about facts and reality is much like the Laws of Physics they don’t care what one believes. One can believe all they want that a 20ft gap can be crossed in 2 - 10ft jumps but the reality will quickly disabuse one of that belief.


One of the bigger problems I see is that often times the true nature of an issue cannot be conveyed in 10 words or less (Like the Westwing episode explained) and people are simply not willing to take the time to understand why something is the way it is. A good example right now is the border issue. If you listen to the right/GOP it’s an epic disaster, emergency, failure etc, etc, etc. When the reality is that it is none of that it is according to the study just done no worse now then it has been historically. But the 1 word description will win every time verse taking a few minutes to actually read up on it and understand what is taking place. Especially if your cognitive bias already leans against Dems and you think President Biden is a failure & illegitimate President.

I don’t know how that gets fixed. I honestly believe that we are on our way to irrigating our crops with Brawndo...

[CrackityJones75]

43. Well said!

[Trust_Reality]

23. Believing can be a really big problem.

Everyone who is religious is a "believer," not just religious stuff. That is their style of "knowing". Trump's followers are believers. They believe his bullshit.

[2Gingersnaps]

32. Covid response in a nutshell.

Gleefully thinning their own herd, and happily including the rest of us.

[KPN]

41. And denying Covid's existence even when it

thins them! It’s a form of social derangement. They are rabid.

[ancianita]

5. The right wing media conditioning of the public set this situation up decades ago.

That media has offered stories (conspiracies) and comforting beliefs.

Some eat that elephant of lies one bite at a time, spit it out.
Others of us point out the longstanding situation, but the elephant is too cute, and the media audience is forced by fear and austerity economics to be so hungry they'll eat anything.

There are lots of truth remedies. But they'll likely be challenged as unconstitutional.
The 'voting them out' remedy would take less than one generation: to make public education a fundamental constitutional right, imo.

[HariSeldon]

6. I think Americans need a perceptual adjustment

Sadly, it probably has to start with the media. They need to shift the focus from the politicians -- whose continued careers may depend on lying on camera -- to people whose careers would be ruined by lying on camera. I think the problem is that the media still believe that the politicians they interview will all tell at least some version of the truth and don't (even after the "former guy&quot have a plan to A) discern the real truth, and B) punish mendacious politicians for their lies. I don't currently see any journalists with the reputational leverage to force politicians into interviews, and that has a lot to do with how partisan America has become: we now -- taken as a whole country -- only value the revelation of misdeeds and mendacity when it's by "the other side."

[LymphocyteLover]

7. conservatives only survive with a heavy dose of lies and their base demands those lies

it's truly fucked up

[LymphocyteLover]

8. the huge problem is conservative media that allows Republicans to be accountability-free

in any sense of being honest or responsive to real needs of ordinary people

[BarbD]

9. Money. Greed. Capitalism.

We are obsessed with it. It is America's bottom line.

[Rhiannon12866]

10. We need to be as tough on anyone who lies to the American people

As the press was on Jimmy Carter. After he promised to never tell a lie, the press dissected every statement he made. We've gotten so used to the lies that came from Trump, he's "normalized" lying among other Republicans.

[Snackshack]

11. Make it part of the oath.

They take upon entering office. Just like when you testify in a trail. Make the consequences sever if a congress member blatantly lies, perjures themselves.

What DT has started cannot be allowed to continue. We have seen the danger a coordinated lie can do and the damage as a result of those who will willingly buy into the lie to satisfy their cognitive bias. We used to have media/news organizations that kept the defense of truth & reality as sacrosanct but that no longer exists and we can no longer rely on them to do what their job is. Since 2003 and the horrible/false reporting done to sell the illegal Iraq invasion the so called “4th Estate” no longer exists it has become a ratings/profit based entertainment & opinion product. I saw a story bemoaning the “slump” in viewership since DT left office. This should be a good thing, we want the Presidency to be boring, uneventful because when it isn’t people usually die. The Presidency is not a reality TV show. It can be deadly when someone unfit/unqualified is POTUS. DT killed over half a million Americans due to his LIES & irresponsible/criminal actions. I still have a hard time understanding how America in general seems very accepting of the loss of 500,000+ citizens. Contrast that to the tragedy in Boulder and the outrage being expressed and it seems our priorities are in need of adjustment...but I digress.

Yes- there absolutely needs to be a detrimental cost of substantial inconvenience for a member of congress to blatantly lie or mislead the American public.

[The Wizard]

14. Has the Fourth Estate

become a Fifth Column ?

[Snackshack]

19. Nice play on words.

Setting that aside for now, I would say “Yes”. Driven by a desire to increase quarterly earnings not so much ideologies, with the exception of at least one network which is obviously an extension of a larger rightwing/GOP roadmap.

[sop]

29. In many ways it has become a fifth column.

The constitutionally protected watchdog role of the fourth estate is necessary for a properly functioning democracy. When freedom of the press is restrained by corporate ownership, truth telling becomes propaganda, destroying our democracy from within.

[The Wizard]

13. This should be required reading

by all high school and college students.
"Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell (Eric Blair)
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/

[Bondor]

15. A question of constitutional law

Is it possible to permit free speech regarding matters of opinion and judgment - such as how a given law might play out in future or who deserves what - while constraining speech that verifiably gets facts wrong?

[Escurumbele]

18. The media has a lot to do with the lack of accountability of the liars

If the media was not so interested in fluff then politicians would never dare to lie the way they do today, but the media is more interested in ratings.

When trump said "the media is the enemy of the people" he was right in some sense, granted that he called it that because he wanted the media to never point out his lies and his evil actions, but in some way they are the enemy of the people when they push forward the propaganda from the liars and when they are so keen to carry the water for the GOP.

Roosevelt said "What they want is a squabble and fuss, and they can have when we explain; and they cannot have it if we don't." Even then the media showed they were only interested in the squabble. Proof is that networks used to have the press secretary liars of the trump administration every day, they were "a good show", they brought ratings, but now when Biden has a professional providing real information, not attacking the media, not attacking the other party?, informing the public, that is not exciting, so they will not show it.

That is why I have to agree with the statement, not with the messenger, but with the statement. If the media does not want to help inform the public, if they feel they are there for a big show whether the actors lie or not, then they are doing the devils work, they are not patriots who can make those who infringe on our rights accountable for their deeds, they in fact become accomplices.

[hack89]

21. Will you accept some official body that has the power to determine what the "truth" is?

what if they determine that systemic racism in America is a lie? That BLM is fundamentally a communist front?

Your assumption is that your truth will win out. That is a bad assumption.

[usaf-vet]

33. Apparently there is one source so feared for digging out the truth and publishing........

....... it. That it has become a target of dark money groups trying to kill it.

https://www.snopes.com/

[Atticus]

45. For most, truth is truth, not "truth". It seems to me that our entire judicial system depends on

12 jurors---eventually and most of the time---determining what is truth.

Just a thought.

[malthaussen]

25. We have a pretty "free market" approach to elections.

Supposedly, in said "free market," politicians who are mendacious or incompetent would be rejected by the consumer of their political product. This works about as well as the soi-disant "free market" in other goods and services.

"Freedom of choice" is so systemically embedded in American culture (so long as we're not talking about abortion), that any remedy that limits choice is bound to bring howls of protest from every radical corner of the universe. As with many other problems in American society, you have to change the system and the expectations before changing behavior. Anything else is just band-aids.

Remember that the Roman Republic had censors to do much the same thing as you ask. Which worked about as well as one might expect, and spawned the always-useful question "Quo custodiet ipsos custodes?"

-- Mal

[2Gingersnaps]

26. Seems to me that is their big cry baby tantrum about "cancel culture."

The normal societal social sanction of shunning for being amoral, a jerk, or a creep they really, really do not want to apply to themselves. They will, however, hyperventilate over preposterous non issues at length at least to give the appearance of moral high ground. Hello Potato Head. Colorado cake baker at it again. And Colorado cake baker? Of course he is cutting his nose off to spite his face. Of course he is being judgemental to a certain peronsally selected community. Do we in this century sanction divorce as a moral failure? But seriously, would you trust this guy to give his best effort to his service for people he thinks he has a right to judge? Practically speaking, I want to know if he washed his hands and there were no "special ingredients." Hypocrites gonna hypocrite.

[rickyhall]

28. Laugh Track?

[GemDigger]

30. Funny you should write that as my blood pressure is still high after reading

a letter to the editor from our R senator this morning.

The whole thing was outright bullshit but the one thing he wrote that got me going was " A $350 billion bailout for blue states that had financial problems before the pandemic— some of these states, like California, are now experiencing significant revenue surpluses" Bolding is mine.

Even though our R governor said he plans on spending that "Covid" money (the one for blue states) in a way that it is not supposed to be spent.

Hell, these guys can't even get their lies straight.

[Trust_Reality]

31. Rachel Maddow has become the top cable news show by focusing on what they do, not what they say.

Maybe that will inspire broader media to do more of that. But of course, conservative/propaganda media just attacks her and continues with their BS.

[Tbear]

36. Puty is exploiting the weak points of our democracy

Free speech? Buy and subvert the media.
Free and fair Elections?are determined by cubic dollars so buy and kompromat the politicians.
Gun ownership? Buy and infiltrate the NRA so any cuckoo can by a gun and murder many in a moment
Racism misogyny homophobia? Use all of the above and a kompromised CIC to foment.
Chill and serve.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

38. The lack of shame has slowly grown worse...

... in my lifetime, especially after Rush Limbaugh.

Even programs like "The Jerry Springer Show" have made it worse, in my opinion.

Limbaugh's show was like the radio version of Springer to
me, attracting the kind of audience who enjoys a "freak show", but with less honesty.

[bucolic_frolic]

39. Agree, we prosecute other forms of fraud - Ponzi, broken contracts - why not lies and hoaxes?

Willful lying, deception, fraud - where the consequences are big enough to disrupt, cause harm, financial decisions to be made - should be unlawful.

We hold corporations to higher standards than politicians. Can't lie about earnings, personnel moves, products. Why can you lie about elections, policies that effect hundreds of millions of people? "It's going away" killed a lot of people. Tens of thousands.

If you can't prosecute the lies, or limit them, you can only educate the public which is already brain dead, or you can prosecute the outcomes and sue for damages. There are adverse effects on the public when very tall tales are told.

[CaptainTruth]

46. Democratic messaging needs to be effective enough that the vast majority...

...of people know they're being lied to, because we've told them they're being lied to, we've told them the truth, & we've given them evidence to support it.

I think we all agree that we would be fools to count on the media (as a whole) to do that, that's our job as Democrats, & it's why we need a well-funded skilled messaging/marketing organization that works full time, not just when specific candidates need to be promoted. Our ideas, & the TRUTH, need to be promoted & communicated constantly.

[First Speaker]

48. Probably not. It took five years to simply censure McCarthy...

...and even then, the GOP was bitterly divided over it. Today, McCarthy would be a moderate Repub, and his tactics and personality are the norm for "conservative" pols. The GOP will never agree to any "remedies", and the Dems can't do it by themselves.