The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Should fake news be fined or jailed ?

Telstra

Telstra

JUB 10k Club
Banned
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
43,486
Reaction score
29
Points
38
Location
Australia
If they did it on purpose ?


For example:
this fat pig produce so many fake news ...

 
Well, Rupert Murdoch and FOX went to court and won the right to lie....so you tell me what should be done.
 
All news is fake to a greater or lesser degree, and it is (almost) always done on purpose.

If you were going to fine or jail news fakers where would you stop?

The BBC 'fake' news all the time by simply ignoring and not reporting stories that do not support their extreme alt.left biased agenda. Likewise 'news' outlets like the Daily Mail ignore news that goes against their extreme alt.right biased agenda.

Just assume that everyone is lying nowadays and that disinformation is the new truth.
 
rareboy said:
Well, Rupert Murdoch and FOX went to court and won the right to lie....so you tell me what should be done.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech cannot exist if the government prohibits or punishes what it--i.e. the party in power--deems to be false or fake. If you say the media have no right to lie, that means that the government can or should censor, prevent or punish lies. And, as we know, to liberals, everything that conservative think, say or publish is a lie because they disagree with liberals.
 
nycguydowntown said:
IDK but he really is starting to look like a pig----the fucker eating all the food in North Korea and his people are starving:mad:
Click to expand...

The people of the DPRK are not starving - that was the nineties. Its not a particularly wealthy country, but the days of the 90s are behind them now.
 
Benvolio said:
Freedom of speech cannot exist if the government prohibits or punishes what it--i.e. the party in power--deems to be false or fake.
Click to expand...

Please, let's not get into this again. You know damned well that Trump denied reporters their Freedom of Speech when he denied them access to his news conferences. We know. We know. It's been hashed and rehashed, regurgitated, and hashed again. He has that right not to talk to them, but he does NOT have the right to prevent them from being there so they can't even ask their questions.

Your argument doesn't hold water.
 
Benvolio said:
Freedom of speech cannot exist if the government prohibits or punishes what it--i.e. the party in power--deems to be false or fake. If you say the media have no right to lie, that means that the government can or should censor, prevent or punish lies. And, as we know, to liberals, everything that conservative think, say or publish is a lie because they disagree with liberals.
Click to expand...

Making up and spreading falsehoods that hurt other people should be punished. I think it's only just. Whether by the government or by the court of law, is up for discussion.

Say someone makes up lies about you and it gets you fired. What would you do? Would it make you a liberal if you did not take it lying down? Should a conservative accept it and say it is after all only freedom of expression?
 
There is a "Advertising Standards Authority"
Why not "News and Facts Authority" ?
 
Benvolio said:
Yes. 'Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech or the press."
Click to expand...

Same should apply to advertising then.
Advertising is part of "free speech or press" You can easily say advertising is news !!!
 
The press is not guaranteed access to the white house, they can report being denied access.
Also, they can be held liable in civil court for slander by private citizens.

The spin put on a story is what is reported to us, some facts can be left out or not emphasized, while other fact are placed front and center.
 
My first and instantaneous response to the thread question is "YES, OF COURSE!"

Then, the nuances start to creep in as I consider it...and those thoughts build on themselves until there's a tsunami of doubts, and situations where this "cure" is worse than the disease.

As soon as it becomes illegal to spread fake news, then yes the kind of fake news like Hillary Clinton operating a worldwide sex and human trafficking ring out of an obscure pizzeria doesn't get published anymore, but...

WHICH ENTITY OR AGENCY WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS OR ISN'T TRUTH? *AND*...WHAT IS NEWS, ANYWAY? How deep does the definition of news go, and where is the line between news, opinion, and rumor? IS there a line between these at all?

"Fake news" would need to be proven as such, to a degree that would stand up in court. We have a judicial system which requires no less than proof in court to sentence anybody to a jail/prison term. That being said, that alone doesn't prevent people from being jailed because they've been ACCUSED of something; that won't stop anytime soon and not everybody can always come up with bail money to be released before trial. If they just happen to lose their job, which maybe also had fully paid healthcare benefits which are now also lost, a life may already be ruined even without guilt.

Again, who determines WHAT is fake news? The government? Welcome to "1984" a few decades late. (I still consider that some of the most brilliant fiction ever written...and it was my favorite book of all time until I read gsdx's unpublished book here.) Who administers the prosecution of fake news? The Feds? The states? Local police, city councils, and county boards?

Is the publication of fake news limited strictly to news agencies, newspapers, etc.? Or does it extend to somebody like me if I was to tell a friend in private that "I think Clarence Thomas is colluding with the Sinaloa drug cartel" and my friend blabbed my opinion to the cops? OK, that's opinion...but what about personal internet blogs, and blog sites such as Daily Kos, which fall somewhere between personal websites and news sites? For that matter, would enforcement of internet "fake news" be as rigorous, or different, than bricks-and-mortar publishing? The way that the internet works now, it's usually websites somewhere, or often some of the opinion cable TV shows "disguised as" news channels, rather than published newspapers, which are most likely the source of viral fake news.

Is the crackdown on fake news going to be, more or less, run by one person at the top who coordinates the definitions of fake news? Would we REALLY want Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, Mike Bickle (a minister who said that gay people must be killed), Pat Robertson, or somebody like that being the guy coordinating the prosecution of fake news?

People could go to prison for saying that the Greenland ice cap is shrinking, or saying that lead in drinking water is bad for you.

The mind boggles, because this is one of those situations with NO good solutions.
 
Telstra said:
Same should apply to advertising then.
Advertising is part of "free speech or press" You can easily say advertising is news !!!
Click to expand...
Yes, THIS too. Another angle that I didn't think of, and this is entirely valid.

I mean, if a commercial spot says that Acme makes the "best" Anti-Roadrunner Boulder Spring Traps, and it turned out that somebody else's Anti-Roadrunner Boulder Spring Traps were better, could Acme be liable for big lawsuits or real jail time for those people responsible for the ads?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top