I agree with this. We have laws against false advertising, and that is not considered infringement on free speech.
During the Victorian era arsenic was known to be poisonous yet "Arsenic Complexion Wafers" were advertised in newspapers claiming that it would remove freckles and pimples. Yet no one in their right mind would argue preventing arsenic from being peddled is an infringement on free speech.
Furthermore, proving deceptive intent is not necessary under false advertising law. The deception of the advertisement is considered alone.
People who are opponents to laws like these on the basis of freedom seem to forget one of the fundamental tenets of it - that your freedom to throw a punch ends where my nose begins.
Unfortunately, we can no longer get people to even agree on the shape of the Earth, much less anything more nuanced. Getting the public to accept what a law says is fake news would be a hopeless endeavor. Half will accept it, half will call it propaganda.
That doesn't solve the problem, which is that if the mainstream media said the world was round, showed the math and provided experimentally verifiable proof, and some random blogger said God told them it was a cube, far too many people would trust the random blogger without question. Even attempting to assert that truth exists will make some people angry.
Personally i dont mind about people who believe in god or whatever it is. No intention to hurt anyone feelings.
But for sure would be good stop others telling them not verified news for the centuries. I.e. about life after death or any kind of magic's.. even santa claus story will be out of law..
Good, we will have fast progress from this moment onwards.
3 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 16.6 ms ] threadDuring the Victorian era arsenic was known to be poisonous yet "Arsenic Complexion Wafers" were advertised in newspapers claiming that it would remove freckles and pimples. Yet no one in their right mind would argue preventing arsenic from being peddled is an infringement on free speech.
Furthermore, proving deceptive intent is not necessary under false advertising law. The deception of the advertisement is considered alone.
People who are opponents to laws like these on the basis of freedom seem to forget one of the fundamental tenets of it - that your freedom to throw a punch ends where my nose begins.
That doesn't solve the problem, which is that if the mainstream media said the world was round, showed the math and provided experimentally verifiable proof, and some random blogger said God told them it was a cube, far too many people would trust the random blogger without question. Even attempting to assert that truth exists will make some people angry.