Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Cleita (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:37 PMOriginal messageWhy can't we have laws against lying?I was listening to this clown from the Cato Institute on Thom Hartmann today on access to health care offering disinformation and already discredited "facts" about national health care in other countries. One of the lies was about people not getting needed surgeries or other care in time to save them from cancer until it was too late. He then offered up Kaiser Permanente as a non-profit solution to hospitals. I nearly fell off my chair with that one. As someone who had to endure Kaiser Permanente for ten years as the only health care access available to me, I can assure you that the quickest appointment I could get for anything was three months down the line. I had to wait a year for a colonoscopy because of bleeding. If it had been cancerous, it probably would have been too late to do much with that kind of wait, yet this clown is offering this as a solution for access to health care for everyone. He didn't say a word about the long waits like he was so happy to offer about health care in England and Canada, which turns out not to be true today in those countries. It may have been so decades ago as these countries were getting their health care bureaucracy in place and operating efficiently, but not today.I'm sick and tired of these people from think tanks like this, the Heritage Foundation, The Carlyle Group, the American Enterprise Institute ad nauseum offering up lies, disinformation and selective information as credible studies into the problems we are facing today. I want laws passed that penalize them harshly for deliberately offering up skewed studies, propaganda and outright lies as credible information and facts that people not familiar with their biases could take as factual.While I'm at it, I want our media held to the same standards too. Any news outlet found out to be deliberately telling lies, half truths, incomplete truths and propaganda should be severely fined, even made to stop reporting until they clean up their operation, until they are sure that what they are reporting is truthful and factual.Hell, I want this from my educators and my politicians too! I want laws against lying to the public if you are presenting yourself as an institution whose job it is to keep the public informed.
silverweb (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:42 PMResponse to Reply #1 7. Legislation would help. In particular, legislation guaranteeing "an informed FREE press, free of corporate as well as government interference," with stiff penalties for spreading lies and disinfomation.
Of course the standard would be that truth always agreed with the liberal POV and that all else should be silenced. The little Marxists have all sorts of wishes on their Christmas list this year, I see..
QuoteCleita (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:37 PMOriginal messageWhy can't we have laws against lying?
Cleita (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:37 PMOriginal messageWhy can't we have laws against lying?
QuoteCleita (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:37 PMOriginal messageWhy can't we have laws against lying?Who was that said: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"? Who could it be?
Nabeshin (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 04:41 PMResponse to Original message77. This is one of the worst policy ideas I've ever heard. Even worse than your idea to license journalists. Legally determining the truth or untruth of a statement is very tricky, and there are good reasons that "lies" are only legally actionable in a few narrowly-defined cases. If you make a law against lying in the media, how will you determine what's a lie? How can you legally determine that "Saddam had WMDs" is a lie and "Karl Rove probably played a part in outing Valerie Plame" is true? The only way to do it would be to bring experts on the subject matter to testify in court, as is done in medical malpractice cases, and you can find "experts" to promote any point of view. There are plenty of people with long lists of impressive-looking credentials who will look a judge in the eye and say that global warming is a myth and homosexuality is a mental disorder. The quantity and quality of "experts" who can be brought in to argue a legal case are determined by how much money someone is able to pay them. So what you're doing is creating a situation where anyone with enough cash can sic the legal system on a media outlet they don't like for the crime of "lying." I bet the neocons would love that. If Keith Olbermann said Bush invaded Iraq with faulty intelligence and gave sweetheart deals to Halliburton, they could scramble a team of "experts" who will testify that he's lying and get MSNBC slapped with a fine.The law of unintended consequences applies to legislation more than anything.
Quote from: ChuckJ on August 05, 2008, 03:50:05 PMQuoteCleita (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:37 PMOriginal messageWhy can't we have laws against lying?Who was that said: "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky"? Who could it be?Just for you I'm going to channel a DUmmie to answer your question. It will be at random so I don't know which DUmmie it will be. Here goes....Stupid repuke bastard! He didn't lie! He told the truth. He didn't have sex with her! She performed oral sex on him! Plus all you fundies probably put something in his water to make him horny and paid her to do it! Screw you!
fascisthunter (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:59 PMResponse to Reply #1721. you know Bryant... just be honest.. You don't want accountability Edited on Tue Aug-05-08 03:00 PM by fascisthunterI have long since seen you blather conservo-bullshit on DU... you don't want people to stop the lying in the media, because I think you are part of it all.Go peddle the BS some with someone else. and welcome to ignore.fascisthunter
Quotesilverweb (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:42 PMResponse to Reply #1 7. Legislation would help. In particular, legislation guaranteeing "an informed FREE press, free of corporate as well as government interference," with stiff penalties for spreading lies and disinfomation. *snerk*Dan Rather would be sharing a jail cell with Jayson Blair from the NY Times. Ditto for Mary Mapes.
If we had laws against lying, all of the primitives on Skins's island would be incarcerated, and Doug's ex-wife on death row.
Quote from: Chris on August 05, 2008, 03:23:54 PMQuotesilverweb (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-05-08 02:42 PMResponse to Reply #1 7. Legislation would help. In particular, legislation guaranteeing "an informed FREE press, free of corporate as well as government interference," with stiff penalties for spreading lies and disinfomation. *snerk*Dan Rather would be sharing a jail cell with Jayson Blair from the NY Times. Ditto for Mary Mapes.Add TiT and 90% of the Dump
To the Constitutional genius that is the OP. We do have those laws, perjury and libel.
Leopold and Pitt doing time for the "Karl Rove Indictment Story" that never was....
Quote from: franksolich on August 05, 2008, 03:56:10 PMIf we had laws against lying, all of the primitives on Skins's island would be incarcerated, and Doug's ex-wife on death row.Can you imagine what TiT would be faced with???????????????????????
