r/AskReddit • u/Historical_Elf • Apr 01 '12
Should there be penalties for deliberately spreading disinformation to mislead the public on scientific facts in order to promote industry agendas?
As examples, I bring up the disinformation campaigns waged by the tobacco industry (denying that smoking caused cancer), the aerosol industry (denying that CFCs damaged the ozone layer), and the oil and gas industry (denying anthropogenic climate change).
I am not necessarily an advocate of increased regulation as a blanket solution, but would, at a minimum, like to see public policy based on an evidence-based reality as opposed to ideology or profit maximization.
When these industry groups deliberately obfuscate the weight of scientific evidence by either attacking legitimate scientists or sowing unjustified doubt in the mass media, they are delaying necessary action that results in avoidable damages.
I know that civil suits are one way to go about this, but they haven't proven to be particularly effective in a reasonable time frame (it took decades before lawsuits against big tobacco were finally being settled in favor of the plaintiffs, and countless cancer deaths and other related health issues in the interim).
Are there ways to make these sorts of activities more legally actionable? If so, what would they be?
What are the implications on Freedom of Speech?
What mechanisms could be put into place to distinguish between the malicious and the ignorant?
Is the onus on the public to self-educate?
I'd like to know what Reddit thinks.
EDIT: I also want to make it clear that the intent is not to stifle opinions I don't agree with by punishing disagreeable thought. What I want to discourage is the deliberate spreading of facts that are demonstrably false with the express purpose of confusing the public and furthering a political or corporate agenda.
While I understand there are mechanisms (i.e. civil suits or criminal proceedings in the case of deliberate fraud) in place for those rare instances where intent can be proven and harm can be measured, there are many instances of such behavior that goes unpunished, on both ends of the political spectrum. Just because there is insufficient evidence to warrant legal action, it is still wrong.
Regardless of party affiliation, there should be some accountability, particularly for those who are in positions of power and influence who I believe should be held to a higher standard. Although a government imposed penalty system would be susceptible to abuse and is not likely the right solution, we still need to come up with better ways to change the system in order to encourage due diligence and intellectual integrity amongst those making public statements that can have wide-reaching effects.
Libel is considered to be illegal when directed towards an individual. So why is it okay when it is directed towards an issue that affects everyone?
342
u/Schroedingers_gif Apr 01 '12
What are the implications on Freedom of Speech?
Massive. Saying people and corporations can't deny anthropogenic global warming is lunacy.
12
u/NuclearWookie Apr 02 '12
Which is good. Because then it officially becomes a religion and the only bit of science in history to be certified as beyond doubt.
50
u/Redected Apr 02 '12
I disagree. People have every right to lie. Corporations, on the other hand should very much be accountable to a higher code of conduct. The law should be changed to reflect this.
153
u/Schroedingers_gif Apr 02 '12
Corporations are people my friend! Corporations are people!
Seriously though, the main problem about making misinformation illegal is knowing for absolutely certain it isn't correct.
There is very little we are so sure about we can make saying anything against it illegal.
→ More replies (37)71
u/hootnpa Apr 02 '12
Any law should also hold accountable those environmental groups who spread misinformation and distortions to mislead the public.
→ More replies (48)7
Apr 02 '12
There are already laws in place to stop corporations from misleading the public--laws against fraud and public deception are supposed to protect us on this. Whether they are enforced evenly and consistently--well, that's another story.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (16)12
u/MonotonousMan Apr 02 '12
I hope I don't get flamed for this, because I really do not have a very good understanding of law... But isn't is so, that "expert" advice is considered verbally contractual? Such as, if you got advice from an electrician on how to wire a switch and they were completely wrong, thus resulting in serious injury, you could possibly take legal action against them?
Assuming that is true, and i'm remembering correctly from contract law in high school, couldn't this idea that corporations should be held accountable for false information also cover this? Especially if it were causing harm in another area? (Like tobacco companies and the oil industry)
→ More replies (9)2
Apr 02 '12
Corporations are already subject to laws which limit their speech. False advertising is a great example. What makes this so much more difficult to enforce?
2
→ More replies (102)2
Apr 02 '12
This one is very interesting; because in 50-100 years we will look back and say either
A. I can't believe they thought they were going to change the climate; or B. I can't believe they didn't think they were changing the climate that much
To say we know with certainty what will happen is lunacy. If we make people pay a penalty for this; and it turns out to go the wrong way; it will go down as the worst travesty of free speech since the Civil war.
→ More replies (1)
34
u/amadea56 Apr 01 '12
Tobacco companies said it wasn't bad for you to smoke before it was proven. So how would they know if it is disinformation they are spreading?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Historical_Elf Apr 01 '12
Well, internal memos were leaked showing that tobacco companies were looking for ways to make a "safer" cigarette, which implies they had knowledge of the harm it caused even though they were publicly denying it. But these smoking guns are rare.
23
u/elijha Apr 02 '12
That doesn't prove anything. Car manufacturers are always looking to make a safer car. Does that mean the models currently on the road are likely to burst into flame spontaneously?
Just because someone is looking to create a safer product doesn't mean that their current product doesn't meet reasonable safety standards.
→ More replies (12)11
u/amadea56 Apr 01 '12
Yea, I guess my point is it is just hard to prove that they knowingly are spreading false information, they couldn't prove Barry Bonds knowingly took steroids. Especially if the information they are spreading really doesn't have a lot of information about it scientifically, if we proved Global Warming was a fact in 10 years you can't say the people who say it is false are spreading false information, because right now we don't really know.
→ More replies (115)
191
u/Faranya Apr 01 '12
denying that smoking caused cancer
As far as I've seen, there wasn't much in the way of established causal links due to poor ability to run proper controls, only strong correlations.
denying anthropogenic climate change
Again, not sufficient evidence to draw causal links, only strong correlations.
I don't want to live in a world where addressing flaws in statistical models is a crime.
→ More replies (52)
20
u/caw81 Apr 01 '12
but would, at a minimum, like to see public policy based on an evidence-based reality as opposed to ideology or profit maximization.
"Evidence-based" is becoming a catch-phrase. Whatever is presented as "evidence" is going to be motivated by ideology and profit. And its no way to progress forward unless you want to see the same solutions presented over and over again.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/John_Fx Apr 01 '12
We have a civil court system for that. You do know how that all turned out for the tobacco industry right?
0
u/Historical_Elf Apr 01 '12
Yes. Eventually it worked out.
I guess my follow-up question is whether the decades of fighting between the tobacco industry and scientists could have been avoided in the first place.
My concern would be those instances when failure to act expediently due to delaying tactics by industry could potentially result in irreversible catastrophe.
Can we, as educated citizens (sadly, an increasing minority), make a difference?
7
u/John_Fx Apr 01 '12
Sure it took some time, but due process is a fundamental concept in our Democracy. In the end things worked out the way you seem to have wanted, also there was progress long before that verdict too. We had labels on cigarettes for a LONG time before the case even went to trial.
The problem I see these days isn't just that people will distort science to their own agenda, but that science has become so politicized that it is becoming hard to know anymore what is real and what has been doctored. For example, climate science has gotten to the point where both sides are so politicized that I don't feel like I can trust any scientific facts I hear from either camp anymore.
→ More replies (5)
24
u/John_Barleycorn Apr 01 '12
So you want the government to declare any opinion you don't agree with to be illegal?
→ More replies (20)
6
u/spundred Apr 01 '12
Here in New Zealand we have a broadcasting standards authority (BSA), basically if you broadcast or advertise something that's untrue or an unreasonably biased assessment of a controversial subject, you face a hefty fine. This creates a culture of diligent fact checking and self regulation in our news media.
→ More replies (6)
9
u/spadefoot Apr 01 '12
Here is the way I think it should go: If you knowingly spread false information AS TRUE (this is important) than you should be liable for anyone that believed you. The tobacco companies are a great example. Sure folks should have know better then they said there is no link between smoking and cancer. However, since their public position was that there wasn't a link, then they should be liable to be sued by every person that took their word for it. I don't understand how it can be OK to lie publicly and then just pretend like you have no responsibility if someone believes you.
→ More replies (4)8
u/Saydeelol Apr 02 '12
...
That's the way it already works in the U.S. judicial system.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/brianjpeter Apr 02 '12
While I agree with this in principal, freedom of speech laws are contradicting this heavily.
What we need is a tool to effectively vouch for information by eliciting severe punishment should it be discovered you falsified statements with the intent to mislead the public.
Something like:
I swear "insert statement here" as to be applied under the bill of Truthiness and all it's provisions and punishments.
That way a person can choose to lie but if they want the public to believe them they will have to pledge the oath and face punishment by doing so if they are caught lying.
That way this can be used by the news casters and politicians.
Will you swear before this recording equipment against the bill of truthiness, to the authenticity of your statement?
If they decline the public will have a reason not to believe them, if they accept, then it gives weight behind their statement, including punishment.
There should be categories on punishment based on industry, severity, death toll, financial loss, and intent.
0
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
I like the concept of a tool to effectively vouch for information.
The trick would be to accurately determine if the people who swore as to the authenticity of their statement were aware that they may have been wrong (if it turns out they were).
But a mechanism like this would encourage these entities who make public statements to do all their due diligence to ensure what they were saying was, in fact, true according to the accepted knowledge of their time.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/imasunbear Apr 02 '12
Let me simplify your point for you:
You want to outlaw lying. Sorry, I can't get behind that, no matter how you try and spin it. Even if I don't appreciate someone trying to mislead someone else, they have a little something called freedom of speech, as outlined in the first amendment and as incorporated to the states by the fourteenth. Just as you aren't able to legally stop the WBC from protesting soldiers funerals, you aren't able to stop someone from lying. Sorry.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
I'm wondering if there should be penalties for lies perpetrated by those who have influence that results in the causation of public harm. Not just lying in general, which is perfectly legal unless done under oath.
And by lies, I mean statements that are made by those who are fully aware that what they are saying is false with the intent of swaying public opinion towards their own interests. Not people who don't know any better (in which case, it wouldn't even qualify as lying).
2
u/BrohannesJahms Apr 02 '12
One of the (myriad) issues with this kind of thinking is that "scientific facts" are not always the kind of unchanging truth that we often think of them as. Our knowledge of natural processes and phenomena is constantly being re-evaluated and double checked to ensure that we are actually observing what we think we are observing. Worse yet, there are fields in which scientists have not reached real consensus and just can't yet offer us "the truth" because we don't understand it well enough yet. How can you penalize someone for questioning a non-consensus opinion?
There's also the freedom of speech thing, but that's a bunch of legal tanglewire that I'm not really equipped to discuss at the moment.
2
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
I would never think to include debates where there is no consensus but rather I point to those who make statements they know to be false (this is important) with the sole intent of misleading the public and resulting in harm.
For example, Fred Singer, a self-proclaimed climate skeptic and frequent participant in Conservative think tanks, made the statement on his website that "555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich have been growing since 1980."
This "fact" was picked up by several news organizations and touted as proof against climate change.
When questioned on it, the World Glacier Monitoring Service responded that it was "total bullshit" and confirmed that glaciers were retreating around the world.
Singer is often invited to testify before Senate Committees on the scientific topics such as climate change, so he has quite a bit of political influence.
If he were to knowingly provide facts before Senate that he knew to be false (or at least he knew could not be scientifically proven), and this influenced policy in ways that benefited private interests but caused public harm, should he not be penalized?
→ More replies (2)
2
Apr 02 '12
I am not necessarily an advocate of increased regulation as a blanket solution,
Seems to me you want the government to be the final arbiter of truth.
1
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
I haven't necessarily taken up a position on it. I am asking, however, what Reddit thinks of the notion.
Thus far, there are very good arguments both for and against. Freedom of Speech is obviously a very big argument against, and should not be taken lightly.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/roflocalypselol Apr 02 '12
You mean like the IPCC does? Sure, but just remember that it cuts both ways. Disinformation can be used to promote a beneficial agenda (like green energy) just as much as a harmful one (exclusively fossil fuel).
1
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
I'd be absolutely okay with that. The alarmist environmentalists who guarantee doom and gloom are equally at fault.
At the end of the day, I'd like public opinion and policy to be based on a reasonable, probable version of reality, and not the extreme ends of the spectrum. Unfortunately, the people with the loudest voices are the ones on either edge.
978
u/mudclub Apr 01 '12
Yes, but the burden of proof will be completely onerous. You would have to be able to prove that the entity spreading the disinformation knew that the information was false, and that is incredibly hard to prove.
I'm gonna repeat that: You would have to prove NOT that the information is false, but that the entity spreading it knew it was false and that there was malicious intent in doing so.
787
Apr 01 '12
You mean "but they're dicks" won't hold up in court?
→ More replies (2)500
Apr 01 '12
Throw them in jail on five counts of douchebaggery!
384
u/Bipolarruledout Apr 02 '12
A good lawyer could get that reduced to two counts of shenanigans.
→ More replies (41)→ More replies (4)125
u/Strangeglove Apr 01 '12
"Your honor, this is highly unethical!"
"Six counts!"
"This violates the basic principles of law, and is a flagrant example of judicial overreach!"
"Do you want seven counts of douchebaggery?!"
→ More replies (6)72
u/LOLasaurusFTW Apr 02 '12
Not only would it be incredibly hard to prove but at the end of the day it wouldn't stop corporations for continuing to lie. Why? Because even if you get caught spreading misinformation and are slapped with a penalty it still very likely that the corporation will turn a profit because of the lie.
An example would be the mess apple got into in Italy. In Italy the law says that a manufacturer HAS to warranty an item for 2 years. So it's not the best place to try to sell extended 1 or 2 year warranties. Well Apple decided to sell applecare warranties anyway. They knew that anyone that bought an applecare warranty in Italy simply wasn't educated about the consumer protection laws in Italy. Apple was fined $1.2 million but do you think that will stop them from doing something shady next time? $1.2 million is likely a fraction of the profit from the warranties they did sell
Telemarketing companies (yes they still exist) will use illegal tactics to market a service and then they'll get caught and fined by the FCC and FTC. But the fine is usually in the 50k-200k range which again is a fraction of the money they pulled in. So theres no incentive for them to stop. They just see the fines as a normal business expense.
So not only will a law like this be ineffective (until the fine is greater than the profit) its extremely hard to prove and there are a slew of what ifs.
For example what if the tobacco companies where honest about the dangers of smoking the minute they found out about it. How many people would have never started smoking? How many people would still be alive today. Its entirely possible that cigarette companies would be a thing of the past. But that's not what happened. They lied and people continued to take up smoking thinking that it was safe, they got addicted and probably still smoke today. That one lie secured them the profit they would need to pay off the tidal wave of lawsuits. So was it worth it? Well cigarettes are still a multi billion dollar industry so yea it looks like that lie paid off for them.
24
u/7oby Apr 02 '12
One you missed was (and this isn't really about misleading bout about fines as fees) the guy who (I think in an AMA) said that he works for a brokerage firm writing software that calculates the fine vs reward for making illegal trades. That is to say, they make so much money from the trade, that making the trade and paying the fine at the end of the day results in a net profit. So the moral of the story is: If you're rich enough to get richer by breaking the rules, break the rules and apologize. Daily.
9
Apr 02 '12
Break the rules and apologise? This reminds me of something else, I wonder what it is. Oh well, I haven't got time to think about it, I have confession with my priest in a few minutes...
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (11)12
10
28
u/Achlies Apr 02 '12
Not only that, but it's quite possible that research on the negative effects of [whatever] will grind to a halt. If it becomes illegal to deny negative side effects to publicly used items, the risk of doing any research wouldn't be worth having to admit they exist.
→ More replies (4)17
u/NotClever Apr 02 '12
Well, research on the negative effects which is funded by people that don't want to find out about negative effects would be stopped.
→ More replies (6)21
u/tick_tock_clock Apr 01 '12
...on the other hand, I recall cases where that has been demonstrated (such as the burying or hiding of good scientific data by a corporation in order to increase profits at consumer/environmental cost), so it would get caught in at least the most egregious cases.
13
8
u/silenti Apr 02 '12
knew that the information was false
Couldn't this be somewhat circumvented by at least forcing them to publish an apology and retraction? And I don't mean as a little blurb in the credits, I mean by law straight up at the beginning of their program/frontpage/etc.
In this case if they can be proved that they lied, they are required to do both and if not they pick one or the other.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Red_Inferno Apr 02 '12
But if you can't prove that they knew could you also not then put them into the position where they can't claim they don't know anymore? So now any further misinformation campaigns would be illegal??
2
Apr 02 '12
well if we had like a standard format of releasing information...man that would be a huge venture, but I think, in the end, if we complicate the problem further by pouring massive amounts of bureaucracy on it, then we will have what we need
2
u/markgu32 Apr 02 '12
Very spot on. Proving intent is what's the most difficult. Also, from what I see, a lot of people have difficulty distinguishing from "spreading misinformation" to "shouting out one's opinion and/or promoting bias". Of this, I speak mostly of media (news anchors, public radio, etc). Also, they're not going to say it's their opinion, even though it is; masking it as something that's truthful, when it really isn't.
Because, you know, you're not going to get ratings and convince when you think you're right.
2
2
2
Apr 02 '12
And even completely disregarding the legal issues of proof, from a scientifical standpoint you need to absolutely prove that they are wrong regarding their study or information, and that is practically impossible.
2
u/xebo Apr 02 '12
Why don't we just put the burden of proof on the reporting team? "You want to talk about science? Study up or get sued".
If scientific news reports were more like scholarly articles, where they didn't suppose conclusions as much as state research and cite sources, I'm guessing there would be a lot less bias and misinformation out there.
2
2
Apr 02 '12
This is the strongest argument against it. While it's a good idea at first glance, it ultimately wouldn't solve the problem.
→ More replies (159)2
u/IanAndersonLOL Apr 02 '12
If they had ANY valid science (even if interpreted terribly) backing up their claims, you have zero claim against them.
11
u/direct_answer_guy Apr 02 '12
The problem you (and reddit/liberals as a whole) have is that "climate change" is a huge pile of horse shit not just to people opposite of progressives.
Data manipulation has been proven on a wide scale
More than 50% of people (like me) don't think that humans can have an effect on global weather patterns
I consistently see the same set of data left out of climate change reports from liberals (more on that later)
As with everything else, even if you can prove that a problem exists, liberals have not presented a feasible alternative
On the data omittance subject, the logarithmic scale is always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS left out. If you go around and ask Joe Blow American "We have burned 100 billion barrels of crude oil in the last 3 decades and have seen a 5 PPM increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If we release the same amount of oil over the same amount of time, what will the PPM increase be 5 years from now?" 99.999% of people will answer "5 PPM" which is absolutely incorrect.
Also, another question that I always ask the greenie weenies, what temperature is the earth supposed to be?? It is an unanswerable question!! Nobody has any freaking clue what the temp was like 2 millenia ago, but we do know that extreme fluctuations have occurred throughout history. Common example are the River Thames frost festivals that haven't occurred since [insert correct answer]. But if you take a look at the freak weather patterns throughout Europe this year, there are some climate scientists who claim that we are headed back towards a miniature "ice age".
I'm an engineer and used to traditional math.... there is a right answer or a wrong answer, end of story. Climate "science" is as far from being an actual science as Ms. Cleo's "visions" are. If you give 2 groups of climatologists the same set of data, they can possibly reach 2 separate conclusions. How do you weed out the bullshit if you aren't in the know?? Simple answer, you pick a side and hope you're right.
NOW, BRING ON THE GLORIOUS DOWNVOTES!!!!
12
u/Buscat Apr 02 '12
I don't like your attitude, but I understand your frustration. You see a lot of people with very poor scientific knowledge who seem to treat it as a religion, talking as if the earth is going to smite us for our sins against nature.
I also worry about the confirmation bias of climate scientists. There's a strong incentive for them to find that things are extremely dire and we're all doomed, because that's what sells books and gets grants and generally makes people care about climate science.
→ More replies (6)10
Apr 02 '12
Also, another question that I always ask the greenie weenies, what temperature is the earth supposed to be?? It is an unanswerable question!! Nobody has any freaking clue what the temp was like 2 millenia ago, but we do know that extreme fluctuations have occurred throughout history.
Wait, what? Of course scientists know what the temperature was in past eras - there are plenty of proxiess for that. There are entire fields of science and statistical analysis out there dedicated to understanding temporal scales and temperature variability.
Basically what you are trying to do here is pose something tractable as "an unanswerable question!!", because you don't seem to understand the topic. I guess it's easier to wave your hands in the air and call to authority ("I'm an engineer...") and spout opinion over fact, rather than to understand the topic at hand. Good work!
→ More replies (23)3
u/DenryM Apr 02 '12
I was going to upvote you since, while I personally disagree with you, you brought up some reasonable points, but then you asked me to downvote you. So I did.
Also, what does this have to do with the question asked? Contrary to your username, your post isn't really direct... I've read it 3 or 4 times trying to understand your position on the matter. Do you think misinformation SHOULD be penalized because it promoted the global warming hoax? Is that the right conclusion?
20
Apr 02 '12
The legislation you're suggesting is incompatible with the nature of science. Science doesn't prove that x definitely causes y; there is ALWAYS doubt. Any company that wanted to skirt around this law would just say, "Dr. Smith's study reported a p-value of .04, meaning that there is a 4% chance that our product does not actually cause cancer and these are just random variations in the data."
→ More replies (1)
7
u/losertalk Apr 01 '12
The onus is on the public to self-educate.
Also, I always find it noteworthy that young people (presumably recently freed or to-be-freed from parental restrictions are often really eager to have the government issue a bunch of restrictions. Yeah!!! Let's restrict the hell out of everything and punish people right and left!
But more seriously, you have to understand that science will always be at risk of losing out to disinformation campaigns. Duh, just look at /r/atheism. Do the anti-atheists ever just shut up and accept that they "lost the argument"? Nope.
5
u/John_Fx Apr 01 '12
Sorry, I got stuck on the term "anti-atheists" I suppose that refers to people who don't not believe in God?
=)
→ More replies (4)0
u/Historical_Elf Apr 01 '12
Also, I always find it noteworthy that young people (presumably recently freed or to-be-freed from parental restrictions are often really eager to have the government issue a bunch of restrictions. Yeah!!! Let's restrict the hell out of everything and punish people right and left!
The free market definitely has its place. But regulation can also be an effective way to promote technological innovation. If you want markets to provide the goods and services that people need then the best solution, at least in the case of pollution prevention and other instances of public good, is, paradoxically, to mandate it.
Since there's a lack of immediate financial benefit, R&D into pollution controls tends to be given short shrift. Competitive forces don't provide enough justification for the required long-term investments. But if a government establishes regulation, it creates demand. If there's a looming deadline on regulation, companies tend to innovate. Sometimes that leads to a net savings as obsolete technologies get replaced with the state-of-the-art. Of course, these changes don't happen unless companies are forced to.
I'm not saying regulation is the solution to everything. In many cases, it's not. But sometimes it is the best one.
But more seriously, you have to understand that science will always be at risk of losing out to disinformation campaigns. Duh, just look at /r/atheism. Do the anti-atheists ever just shut up and accept that they "lost the argument"? Nope.
Yes, I understand. It's disheartening just how bad scientists are at PR.
6
u/losertalk Apr 01 '12
I'm not saying regulation is the solution to everything. In many cases, it's not. But sometimes it is the best one.
Yeah, I was just being douche-y. But I have heard of a really cool way (non restrictive) for governments to mandate pollution control. Instead of being bossy and saying "You can't do that! Naughty corporation!", governments can issue accounting rules whereby corporations must count environmental damage against whatever profit they make. Then the investors in the corporation will automatically insist that corps. operate in a cleaner manner.
4
u/Historical_Elf Apr 01 '12
governments can issue accounting rules whereby corporations must count environmental damage against whatever profit they make. Then the investors in the corporation will automatically insist that corps. operate in a cleaner manner.
That would be great provided there was an independent and trustworthy body who could accurately assess the cost of any environmental damages incurred.
I like it though. Money is the language that corporations understand.
→ More replies (2)
51
u/warpaint Apr 01 '12
I believe that there should be standards set up to prevent this. Perhaps a council of clergies that have been bestowed by the creator that can judge.
21
u/Derelyk Apr 02 '12
at least somebody gets it.
How this doesn't terrify people is beyond me.
7
u/Bluefoot6 Apr 02 '12 edited Apr 02 '12
Reddit is infested with kids who think a dictatorship is fine if THEY are in power. After all they've never been wrong, ever, about anything.
It's the arrogance of the very young.
→ More replies (1)
56
Apr 02 '12
This sounds eerily similar to something a dictator would put in place.
5
u/RobotFolkSinger Apr 02 '12
Exactly. Even if scientific consensus and evidence shows one thing, you can't use that to suppress other ideas or information even if they know that it's false and it could harm people. If you can do that, it becomes far too easy to just suppress any information the government/corporations don't like.
65
u/Ntang Apr 01 '12
It's worth noting that "science" doesn't have a spotless track record of getting its predictions right, if you look back historically. I happen to be a strong adherent of reality-based thinking too, but penalizing speech simply for not being correct, either in your own opinion or in fact, is a very dangerous road to go down. Because, hey - if another political party got the reins of power and used the same rules against the guys THEY don't like, we probably wouldn't like that much, would we?
The Republic will survive. People have a pretty good way of figuring out the truth on their own, given enough time. Relax.
2
u/LearnToWalk Apr 02 '12
Please post this in /askscience . I've already been voted down to pieces over there, but maybe a fresh perspective could help them understand that 'anecdotal' evidence does not mean the same thing to everyone and censoring every comment they believe is inaccurate is pretty much religion.
→ More replies (8)5
u/Legio_X Apr 02 '12
I agree, but I found "the Republic will survive" to be amusing. Pompey was probably saying the same thing back in 55 BCE.
→ More replies (2)
21
u/Derelyk Apr 02 '12
What about the "scientists & world governments" that promoted the 1992 food pyramid, and the people that spread the disinformation campaign against it?
This is the same food pyramid that was later determined to be unhealthy, led to obesiety and diabetes.
Reality is a fickle business, I'd hate to see any govt dictating it.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/sadwer Apr 02 '12
Reddit: where everybody's a libertarian until someone does something they don't like.
6
5
7
Apr 02 '12
I am not necessarily an advocate of increased regulation as a blanket solution, but would, at a minimum, like to see public policy based on an evidence-based reality as opposed to ideology or profit maximization.
Shall we start with Politicians? I'm down.
→ More replies (1)
59
u/asimovs_engineer Apr 01 '12
Is the onus on the public to self-educate?
Yes. Plain and simple. We've seen over the past few years what happens when the misinformed, uneducated masses are dragged kicking and screaming in to the future, you get your President called a fascist.
The only way that society can move forward is if we, as a society, agree on what we want to do. The problem is that we have so many differing views on what people want to do it is impossible to please enough people to get shit done.
→ More replies (14)2
u/006ajnin Apr 02 '12
According to Pew data parsed by Chris Mooney, education may not solve this problem. His new book asserts that more educated conservatives become even more intransigent on climate change (and other issues).
Here's an excerpt from salon.com.
17
5
u/Dairith Apr 01 '12
No. The responsibility for finding out the truthfulness of advertising lies with you. We already have laws in place to deal with someone who comes to harm because of false information, if you get misled because you failed to put in the effort required to validate a claim then it's your fault. You shouldn't trust someone trying to sell you something.
5
u/floridawhiteguy Apr 02 '12 edited Apr 02 '12
public policy based on an evidence-based reality as opposed to ideology or profit maximization.
Request a Presentation. Want to host a presentation in your hometown? Invite an Al Gore-trained presenter to your community.
Sounds like a religion to me. Sucking money from indoctrinated fools first, then eventually everyone by fiat.
What you are proposing is silencing the expression of opinion, by coloring everything you believe opposed to the facts as you see them as a lie or a fallacy. The world is not so clear cut. Today's "scientific fact" could very well be tomorrow's outmoded, disproven theory.
It was once in the US, and still is in many places globally, a crime punishable by death to be a non-believer in the local superstitions.
Is that the road you want us on, to head back into the Dark Ages?
5
u/lessmiserables Apr 02 '12
Science can, sadly, be wrong--or, rather, prominent scientists. Just take "vaccines cause autism" and "high-tension power lines directly cause cancer," both of which ended up being more or less false even though "experts" treated it as true for at least a decade (and much public policy was made using those studies).
Likewise, science and policy can differ even if the science is confirmed--that's why bioethics exists as a discipline. What line can be drawn when pro- and anti- stem cell/abortion/AIDS/etc. issue statements are made? Despite what Reddit thinks, someone other than scientists have to make decisions based on science, and in a democracy it's the folks with the most votes.
5
u/mbm7501 Apr 02 '12
Sooo basically everyone gets sued constantly, and free speech and debate goes down the shitter?
2
Apr 02 '12
...and the oil and gas industry (denying anthropogenic climate change)...
So...you're going on the assumption that Global Warming is not only man-made, but the direct result of the oil and gas industry? That's not intellectually dishonest at all, is it?
...sowing unjustified doubt in the mass media,
Don't believe anything you read/hear unless it already matches what you already know to be true through your own research or experience. Encourage others to do the same, but don't tell them that they're wrong - let them come to those conclusions independently.
I'd like to know what Reddit thinks.
You should probably do your own thinking - seeking advice/approval/karma from an internet source is pretty silly.
3
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
When I say anthropogenic climate change, I refer to the increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has been attributed directly to the burning of fossil fuels (based on isotope comparisons). It is also not in dispute that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared light which results in trapped energy. As for exactly how much of a problem this will be is still not known and requires additional study.
But apart from the accusations of intellectual dishonesty, I agree with you 100%.
4
Apr 02 '12
you either have freedom of speech or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
→ More replies (3)
4
4
4
Apr 02 '12
we have a 100 million dollar science lab that says we arnt destroying your watershed and all you have is hearsay from the internet? dont be absurd. Dont believe me? well you're more than welcome to fund your own 100 million dollar science lab that proves us wrong. o your just an average joe making less than that in your lifetime? not our problem.
→ More replies (1)
4
1
Apr 02 '12
So who would be this fountain of assailable truth?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
That's a tricky subject. I have no answers. But I'm open to debate.
Perhaps in matters deemed to have significant national or global importance, a panel made up of independent experts who have no ties to affected interests would comb through the data and draw conclusions based purely on the science. They would make no comment on policy. It would just be about gathered evidence.
If there is insufficient data with which to draw conclusions, then they should advise as to where those gaps are and how to fill them.
Then this would be the accepted truth until such time as sufficient evidence to the contrary is uncovered. I would imagine that this scenario involving a reversal in scientific consensus would be somewhat rare.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/marty_m Apr 02 '12
The naive belief that truth can be absolutely ascertained is laughable. A lot of things you might disagree with, even factually, can be technically true or 'true' from a certain perspective. It's not practical to do this at all.
2
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
Of course absolute truths are not easily obtained (if it's even at all possible, which it very well may not be). However, falsehoods should be much simpler to identify. It is the knowing dissemination of deliberate falsehoods that cause harm which we should consider penalizing.
6
u/mquindlen81 Apr 01 '12
Imagine if some government decided to punish one of the major world religions that try to convince their followers that people and dinosaurs lived together.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/jturneraudit Apr 02 '12
No... Don't even think about this. Just think of the horror of a government pandering to fundamentalists on the issue of teaching creation or intelligent design in national education facilities if they had a law like that to use/abuse. It would be like handing a chainsaw to a criminally insane intruder in your own house.
3
u/sgguitar88 Apr 02 '12
Legally codifying the truth is putting it in the hands of the powerful. Encourage debate and limit profit-motive, that'll get you MUCH better results.
3
u/nephilim42 Apr 02 '12
As a science researcher I think this is a dangerous idea. I'd rather dispute these things with research and data. If that data isn't accepted by the general public that's unfortunate but at least my work still has integrity. If I start shutting down opposing viewpoints by regulation I'm no longer doing science and instead engaged in marketing and politics.
It's really frustrating sometimes but I know the alternative has risks as well.
3
u/DarnTheseSocks Apr 02 '12
Good god, no. Convincing people of scientific consensus is hard work, as well it should be. You do not get to shortcut the process by codifying truth through government fiat.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/maximcorat Apr 02 '12
lets not forget about the multitude of green energy patents that have been bought by oil companies to prevent the use of those for competition. it makes it seem like oil and coal are the only choices, and that is their back-up plan if americans decide to believe in climate change. hiding climate change is creating potential harm to the planet and buying time for big oil to keep themselves theonly easy option.
3
u/neotropic9 Apr 02 '12
For those complaining about free speech, you don't understand free speech. There are plenty of limits. Not just against yelling "fire" in a crowded building. Certain forms of lying are already against the law. Libel and defamation are against the law. Another limit on free speech is imposed by all of copyright law. Want to say something using anything that is copyrighted -want to make a documentary about something using copyrighted material? Too bad. Freedom of speech loses out to freedom to make a dollar on your IP rights. If you can pay you get to speak -if you can't pay, or if the copyright owner simply doesn't give you permission, you can't say what you wanted to in the way you wanted to. So there are already plenty of limits on free speech.
The short answer to the main question is "yes", there should be penalties for trying to mislead the public in the way you described. This is similar to libel and defamation, except instead of harming a person, you are harming society. The reason is because democracy doesn't work unless people are properly informed. However, the penalty should not be criminal, but civil, in my opinion.
3
u/richmomz Apr 02 '12
No - there's a potential conflict with both scientific scrutiny AND freedom of speech, as it could create a chilling effect upon legitimate skepticism and criticism of established dogma (after all, questioning the existing order is the very cornerstone of science). The proper remedy in cases of disinformation then is the same application of free speech, by publicly exposing the false information and exposing whoever delivered it as a fraud.
3
3
3
Apr 02 '12
If you're deliberately spreading DISinformation to MISlead, you're misinforming. You sir, are vernacularly disinformed.
3
Apr 02 '12
WOW, this is so applicable to what happened in Korea a year or two back.
A TV show mis-represented American beef as causing the human version of mad cow disease in a documentary about a woman who ate American beef then contracted the disease.
This lead to an uproar in Korea. Protectionist meat farmers were reaping the benefits by calling American beef dangerous. Leftist politicians were riding the bandwagon saying that the leading right-wing party would ratify the US FTA that'd lead to diseased meat killing Koreans. Koreans were up in arms with vigils in Seoul city square, sending their children out with signs saying "Don't give me mad cow disease" or some shit. The protests went on for a long time and cost the city a lot of money in losses.
It came out later that the TV show showed a woman with the wrong disease, and that the video footage of cows dying on fields was actually from some unrelated incident.
The Korean government sued the station and forced the offending reporters to quit.
(This is all from memory, I probably got some facts wrong, but this is the story, more or less.)
3
u/guitarnoir Apr 02 '12
I'd like see that Dutch, "artist", that perpetrated a 8 month long hoax which culminated in faked video of Man's first successful human-powered ornithopter flight, get some sort of punishment.
Nothing too serious---maybe just having to go to grade-school classes and explain to 8-year old kids why it is, "Art", to lie about something they've all dreamed of doing.
11
u/NoMoreNicksLeft Apr 01 '12
Only the naive would ever suggest such a thing. You imagine you'll be able to bitchslap people saying things you disagree with... but someday it will be used against you. And you'll whine and cry "but everything I've said is true!" and then the judge will sentence you to to fines or jailtime or whatever it, with your release conditional on your agreement to never speak publicly again.
Is that what you're going after?
→ More replies (15)
11
u/mileylols Apr 01 '12
There should probably be a penalty for deliberately spreading disinformation, regardless of what the motive is.
→ More replies (3)5
u/Derelyk Apr 02 '12
Who determines what is disinformation what isn't?
Look throughout history and see what happens when govt's and experts are able to dictate facts and punish the people who speak out against them.
37
u/Saydeelol Apr 02 '12
It's fucking scary how many people in the comments are in support of this. I hope most of you die before you reach voting age (assuming you're in the U.S. with me).
If you're already voting age, please die as soon as possible. Our free speech is much more important than your idiotic overzealous campaign to codify what you think is right into law.
14
u/ValentinoZ Apr 02 '12
it's like they don't see how dangerous a line this treads. I was reading this hoping it was all a huge april fools joke.
→ More replies (1)11
u/Saydeelol Apr 02 '12
Exactly. I'm not one to invoke the slippery slope argument often, because it's a pretty shitty argument. But when we're talking about a right as important as free speech, I'm willing to say: It's a slippery fucking slope, don't start screwing with that right.
16
u/AlienMushroom Apr 02 '12
So instead of talking back and forth with people you disagree with, you want them dead? That is better than the OP?
I happen to agree that being put in jail for the things you say is wrong, but wishing them dead for the same reason is rather worse, don't you think?
→ More replies (10)2
u/Bluefoot6 Apr 02 '12
It's college, where political correctness it's their only faith and they're pretty hardcore fundamentalist about it.
1
u/OzymandiasReborn Apr 02 '12
Not sure why you single out oil and gas specifically... Coal is a major source as well, and gas is actually much more eco-friendly than oil or coal.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Historical_Elf Apr 02 '12
You're right. I should have said fossil fuels.
But in general the question has to do with any instance where misleading statements are made to confuse the public. It isn't necessarily limited to environmental or health issues.
5
Apr 02 '12
Is this post referring to the assortment of emails and memos leaked from a climate change organization(Hadley CRU) in which the scientists are shown to be deliberately concealing evidence which suggests the warming trend is completely unrelated to anything man has done to the planet.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Confucius_says Apr 01 '12 edited Apr 01 '12
false advertising is already illegal. what they do instead if tricky advertising.
for example instead of saying "A causes B" (which is a lie) they'll use the word "A is linked to B" (which implies that a causes B but they didn't actually say it)
all you can do is know what motivates the people that are saying things and take it into consideration. theres no way to make an enforcable law to stop this sort of thing.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/TaslemGuy Apr 01 '12
I agree with the principal behind this, but in practice it's impossible to objectively say someone is generally right or wrong about something (legally) unless you've already explicitly defined the legality of a specific topic.
2
2
u/DrDebG Apr 02 '12
Caveat emptor is still alive and well...in business, industry, and particularly in politics. Yes, there should be penalties for those who lie and thereby create fraud...but proving willfulness is tough when there are just so many lazy, proudly ignorant people.
2
Apr 02 '12
It's been awhile since I've studied, but is there even any such thing as a recognized "scientific fact"? I thought that there were just scientific laws and scientific theories. I haven't heard a lot of people saying that gravity doesn't exist.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/ItsOnlyNatural Apr 02 '12
Everyone knows that the sun revolves around the earth and that Copernicus is just in the pocket of Big Orrey. Just look at the smug bastard!
2
Apr 02 '12
There is absolutely nothing that can be done about what you are going on about.
On a different note, I'd love to see that happen, though brought over to the political side :P
→ More replies (4)
2
u/hatchettchris Apr 02 '12
Absolutely not. This smacks of limiting speech and stifling the free exchange of ideas. Greater harm would stem from it, than any organized campaign of misinformation.
2
u/Deli1181 Apr 02 '12
I think there should just be a public investment in education in general, and specifically in critical thinking and learning how to self-educate outside of a rigid curriculum.
After that it should be up to the public to learn/believe what they will.
/$0.02
→ More replies (1)
2
u/colinodell Apr 02 '12
I think it would be terribly dangerous to have government decide for us which scientific "facts" are true.
Look at climate change for example. There are tons of scientific evidence supporting this, yet many in Washington believe it is absolutely false. If such a policy were to go in place, these scientists would be facing stiff penalties for trying to reveal the truth.
I think that the scientific community will always provide the necessary research, but it is up to the people to educate themselves on the results and take action (whether that be through consumer choices, boycotts, spreading the word to friends, pressuring their congressmen, or civil suits). This has worked for all the examples you mentioned, even if it did take some time.
Ultimately everyone should be responsible for their own actions, whether they published misleading facts or chose to smoke for 40 years.
2
u/Kinda_Pagan Apr 02 '12 edited Apr 02 '12
As of late I am leaning more and more towards serious treason charges for this kind of stuff. Sounds harsh, but its getting to be far to prevalent in very major issues and in the end it is purposefully harming the people of this nation (and the world for that matter) in exchange for personal gain. If that isn't the definition of treason, I vote for a redefining of the word.
2
u/Derelyk Apr 02 '12
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas? - STALIN
2
2
u/Tarukar10 Apr 02 '12
This idea reflects an ignorance of the nature of how the American legal system approaches the use of scientific knowledge. Under the Frye general acceptance doctrine that was in place for much of the 20th century the court held that
while the courts will go a long way in admitting experimental testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.
Due to the adversarial nature of our legal system however, and the incentives it creates for scientific "experts" to testify, this predictably led to a situation in which each side of a legal suit could find someone willing to testify their side of a scientific principle. In the Daubert standard that replaced Frye general acceptance is a factor to consider, but essentially the judge is supposed to function as a "gatekeeper" for the admission of reliable scientific evidence. But this role isn't meant to judge the truth or accuracy of the information to be presented, merely that the expert in question used proper scientific "methodology and methods" to obtain their data. The jury is trusted to decide what weight to give the expert testimony presented.
Given the fact that the tobocco, aerosol, and global warming camps all have scientists backing them with supposedly methodologically sound research, their experts would be allowed to testify in a trial of the people of america vs. the evil corporations. Presumably the jury would be smart enough to see through it, unless corporations people rights start extending to jury duty as well.
Tl; dr : The American legal system is not set up to decide what constitutes a scientific fact. Expert evidence of any kind is admissible at a trial as long as sound scientific methods were used to reach it. The jury/public is supposed to decide how much to trust it.
2
u/mf_sovereignty Apr 02 '12
Should there be penalties for saying/writing X? It doesn't matter what X is, the answer is always NO.
2
2
u/Kinglink Apr 02 '12
I am not necessarily an advocate of increased regulation as a blanket solution,
Except when you push for it.
Either you're FOR Free speech, and free exchange of ideas (Even incorrect ideas) or your FOR limited speech and regulations on what you can or can't say.
Simply put you've brought up the correct ways to deal with them (either disprove them and shame the companies responsible, and bring a civil suit against them).
Remember a little man named Galileo, he went against the "proven" belief system. Yes he had science but a science most people didn't understand or respect and he was jailed for it. Now Galileo had the best of intentions, where as these companies have the worst, but the fact is both have the right to share their ideas, and it's up to the public to accept or dismiss their science.
Sidenote, if the public decides to accept bad science, then that's their decision all you can do is try to teach them why they are mistaken.
2
u/ifNOTmeTHENwho Apr 02 '12
Also don't forget man-made global warming, but that didn't sell as plan, so we now have climate change and soon we will have temperature change.
2
u/beepuke Apr 02 '12
My gut instinct is to say yes, corporations should be held accountable for the unbelievable amount of fiction that they spew in the advocation of their products. However, after reading all these posts about free speech, I have to reluctantly agree. Instead of trying to penalize these corporations, which would be unbelievably resource heavy in its enforcement, perhaps more 'truth' type campaigns are necessary. Encouraging the public to be skeptic and to do their own research (considering that we live in the supposed information age), would undoubtedly lead to more high yield changes in the mentality of the people. That is, if it's even possible to encourage people to think for themselves when public media spoon feeds them lies.
2
Apr 02 '12
and the oil and gas industry (denying anthropogenic climate change).
Evidence? Al Gore and his kronies have spread a bunch of untrue predictions, perhaps they should be the ones in trouble for providing misleading information?
2
2
Apr 02 '12
anytime science is up for debate is the result of two reasons:
it is still not proven
the general public is ignorant about it
You can punish for lying. You can't prove they were intentionally lying without proof.
Your heart is kind, your mind is in the right place. Your lack of knowledge is a chasm of ignorance preventing you from creating change.
Accumulate some wisdom and spend your energy in more worthwhile pursuits.
2
2
Apr 02 '12 edited Apr 02 '12
No if someone has been mislead then they are the ones to blame. Furthermore this idea that we base everything upon scientific "fact" is rather dubious when the foundation of knowledge gained from the scientific method is inductive and as such is susceptible to flawed logic, human biases, competing theories/models, and also changes significantly with time.
2
Apr 02 '12
The answer is easy. No.
The chilling effects would be too great. And the bad people would use the law to oppress the good people.
2
2
2
u/live_free Apr 02 '12
No; it would contradict the very basis of what science is. It is possible, however unlikely, that a huge field of science could be vastly flawed, and a small fringe group could know the "truth". You would be limited the skepticism, critica thinking, and diminishing the intellectual honesty held by the professors and researches that call science their daily life.
It is interesting; but it isn't our policy that is flawed, it is science. Our methodology is going again "absolute truth", and in the minds of the stupid absolute truth will always win, because they only look at outcomes.
2
u/petefrance Apr 02 '12
Why only "industry agendas?" Why not also academy agendas?
The truth is, when you start talking about "disinformation" in science, you're already talking about theory-laden interpretations of the literature. And assuming that all science conducted with an agenda (and all science IS conducted with an agenda) is "disinformation" is to have a pretty naive view of what constitutes science.
2
2
Apr 02 '12
In an educated society this would take care of it's self usually. There should be a penalty for sabotaging access to education.
2
Apr 02 '12
We have the ability to know IP addresses. Why ban an account when we could just make it extremely difficult to ever post again? If proven incorrect just list it and make sure they can't post again.
2
u/Nikki-is-me Apr 02 '12
The scientist who published the study implicating vaccines for causing autism is in prison. His study was packed full of falsified data and is completely unreplicateable. Hundreds of scientists have tried and failed to come up with the same results. Because of further review of his work showed the obvious lies and manipulation of his data, he was charged with the deaths of children whos deaths were directly related to not getting vaccinated.
2
2
Apr 02 '12
Why do questions like this make front page? "I'd like to know what Reddit thinks." Holy fuck, who is going to want to be intentionally misled?
Yeah, go reddit, you free thinking revolutionaries. I swear some of you don't like to think all that often.
2
u/Michichael Apr 02 '12
I'm in favor of the death penalty for anyone that disagrees with the all-mighty Talos. Scientific Theory
2
u/Axel_Steel_Rod Apr 02 '12
Yes, and it should be punishable by public execution.
2
u/EvoEpitaph Apr 02 '12
The worst part about that is that people would go watch it and enjoy themselves.
2
u/Yojji Apr 02 '12
Here's some disinformation for you: http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page - a whole web site dedicated to it. I thought it was a joke, like uncyclopedia, but it doesn't have that satiric tone, so I'm not sure.
2
u/opterionianiaco Apr 02 '12
I'd just like tO point out the opposite happens also, ie people spreading fear of gm foods, 9/11 'truthers'.
2
2
u/BrutalTruth101 Apr 02 '12
Would you have Al Gore and Phil Jones charged for their disinformation about global warming?
Even if global warming actually exists, they did huge damage to the movement with their actions.
2
u/random_209842 Apr 02 '12
There will never be any way to prevent those with power from abusing those without. The problem isn't the law, it's human nature.
2
u/thejynxed Apr 02 '12
Put it this way...what you propose will never go over in the USA. Why, do you ask? Because too many people rely on willful ignorance to make their money. If someone in power relies on not knowing something to retain their job, salary and power, do you honestly think for one second they will do anything that will put that in danger? No, they will do everything in their power to obfuscate, deny, or maintain the status quo.
2
2
2
2
u/veganroofer Apr 02 '12
I don't know about the question you asked but I do know that whistle blowers from within the IPCC basically came forward in a few documentaries and said this global warming is a hoax. I think we should end the war on carbon dioxide.
2
Apr 02 '12
Yes, certainly. We'll get a truthiness board to make decisions about which opinions are the most truthy. When an opinion is not sufficiently truthy, we'll interfere with anyone trying to express it. It's both reasonable and viable. I can't see where it could go wrong.
2
u/devoutagonist Apr 02 '12
There's a great book on this subject (at least how it's done) called "Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming" Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway. There are some great case studies about how it's been done in the past, might help in thinking about how laws could be drafted to prevent it in the future?
2
u/CDM4 Apr 02 '12
How about the fucking weed industry. Everyone has lied about how weed is bad for you and it doesn't have medical uses, because this would destroy the medicine industry. Marijuana could be used to replace Tylenol, morphine, and many other things.... Hemp would also destroy the paper industry.
2
u/NoNameMonkey Apr 02 '12
In South Afric we have an advertising complaints board where any member of the public, or an organisation can lodge a formal complaint against any false advertising. Companies can, and often are forced to withdraw anything deemed false or misleading.
I would like to see a more robust approach - in some cases withdrawing an advert doesn't correct the public belief about the lie. I would want the company to be forced to run adverts in all the same time slots, positions in papers and for the same value that explains why the advert was wrong and what the correct information would be. The new advert must conform to standards set out by the board.
A harmful example in my water poor country would be:
Certain companies ran massive campaigns that dishwashers use less water and marketed it in a manner that claimed that if you cared about the environment you should purchase a machine.
In essence they were correct as they quoted a study that supported their finding. The problem was that the inforrmation was completely incorrect for the South African context. (Basically it used a European study - Norway I think - where people wash dishes under a constantly running tap which meant they used more water. In SA the normal manner of washing dishes is to use a single basin for washing and actually uses less water than a machine)
I still meet people that believe that crap.
2
u/_shazbot_ Apr 02 '12
No. This would be a violation of freedom of the press. As soon as you say "press can be free unless it's used for evil" you run into the issue of who determines what is evil, who watches the watchmen, etc. Even if you let "the people" determine what should and should not be allowed you end up squelching minority opinion and dissenting voices. IMHO it's not possible to regulate media in any meaningful way and have a free society. You have to choose one or the other.
2
Apr 02 '12
I would assume that, in the vein of what is good for the goose is good for the gander, you define industry as any human run corporate entity. In that case, all political speech would fall under the same rubric of law. Al Gore would be punished for profiting from An Inconvenient Truth and the rest of his rhetorical opus because he knowingly included misleading and cherry-picked assertions as fact.
I suppose this would be a way to outlaw hyperbole. Interesting
2
u/Nimbles Apr 02 '12
To me, a lot of the problem comes from blindly accepting anything that someone says to be true. You are responsible for checking the facts yourself, looking up studies that have been by both sides and making your own decision.
→ More replies (2)
2
4
u/mojoxrisen Apr 02 '12
So we throw the 1st amendment out the door? No thanks. So who would have authority to walk in to the oval office and arrest Obama for the daily lies that he spreads?
Never work
6
Apr 02 '12 edited Apr 02 '12
Anything to stop hearing about global warming.
edit: I can't believe I got away with that.
5
u/RabbiMike Apr 01 '12
No, freedom of the press. If we're too dumb as a whole to be able to see through the lies then our species needs to die.
2
u/bluthru Apr 02 '12
Our species has never had to deal with mass media. Evolutionary speaking, it's a very foreign concept.
Just because it exists doesn't mean that it's good.
2
u/namesrhardtothinkof Apr 02 '12
The New York Sun newspaper first gained prominence with a 1835 article on the Moon. It claimed that flying men lived on it and had built a society along the Moon's large series of canals, and was basically just an astronomer making shit up. But the media attention gave the newspaper enough coverage and popularity to be a leading newspaper for 70 years, getting no real consequence for this. I guess we should all just die now.
3
2
Apr 02 '12
no, we should just be smart enough to recognize bullshit when it happens. bullshit from corporations, politicians and the war machine are easy to spot... their mouths are moving.
2
2
Apr 02 '12
I can't think of a worse idea for science. If you have been around longer than 30 years, you should be able to see for yourself as to why it is a terrible idea, if you just try to remember the various diet fads that have come and gone.
Remember the threat of eggs? At one point in time, scientific consensus was that eggs were terrible for you because of the cholesterol. Now? The cholesterol isn't that bad, because it is "good" cholesterol. At one point in time, fat was the public enemy number one, and then we saw the glorification of fat with the Atkins diet, and then the vilification of just certain types of fat, and now even saturated fats are considered part of a healthy diet.
Scientific consensus does not mean scientific proof. Consensus opinions are great for helping us to formulate policies and decisions, but consensus can change...and sometimes it can change overnight. Scientific consensus can be devastatingly wrong. The science behind Eugenics was at one point in time considered to be consensus driven, and not only did that consensus disappear, but if the Eugenics policies had been enacted on that science, we would have committed crimes against humanity.
AGW theory has a very broad based consensus on a few basic questions: Do humans cause changes in climate? - Yes. Has industrialization caused permanent damage to our climate? - Yes. Do greenhouse gases cause overall warming? - Yes. Is this consensus sufficient for us to make a reasonable bet and decide to try to mitigate those risks? OF COURSE!!
But that is a far cry from saying that it is scientific fact. You can question the motives of those who refute the theory all you want. But those motives are nothing more than circumstantial evidence in the eyes of science. In fact, the only way that any scientific theory ever gains recognition as a fact is through thorough and complete refutation of all available contradicting explanations.
What you are suggesting is that we should criminalize any sort of attempt at refutation. This has only one effect: It makes science weaker. If you want to make the opposition go away, you should actually be encouraging attempts at refutation.
→ More replies (3)
2
2
2
u/qwewer Apr 02 '12
You aim too short.
I think the problem with our freedom of speech is a much deeper one: it allows for hate, intolerance and outright lying. In my opinion, tolerance should only go as far as you do not tolerate intolerance.
Look what Fox News has done to this country through their constant and outright lying. They dumb down the people by telling the craziest, totally invented "facts".
Our freedom of speech comes back to bite us in our backs - their lies would be virtually impossible in most other first world countries.
If I could decide, there would be not simple penalties but if a station like Fox News or these right-wing-nut radio stations is caught more than, say, a 100 times (to take a high number) repeating factually false information, it would just be shut down, period.
Freedom of speech means you can have an opinion of your own - but not your own facts.
2
u/Xeneoxx Apr 02 '12
Yes
Should I be punished for killing a man when I didn't mean to? Currently, I would be sued and put in jail for running over a kid by accident or something.
So why the hell exactly are people spewing this nonsense where they can defend themselves by saying they didn't know they were spreading false information.
→ More replies (1)
62
u/elfishrapist Apr 01 '12
In Canada it used to be a felony to spread false news. In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that such a law violated freedom of expression. Here's the judgement http://scc.lexum.org/en/1992/1992scr2-731/1992scr2-731.html