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

[wnylib]

12. Setting additional limits on free speech is

Last edited Wed Mar 24, 2021, 10:31 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?