Well, with all the talk about ‘Fake News’ and such being tossed around it was only a matter of time before some ding-bat thinks the government should get involved.
Three such people, Abby K. Wood, Ann M. Ravel, and Irina Dykhne, have come up with a bill they hope is proposed and made into law called, Fool Me Once.
This recommendation to regulate ‘news’ to be done by the government is absolutely terrifying and should be to anyone with a brain. I’m at a loss as to how such a proposal wouldn’t be a violation of the 1st amendment.
But the wording of the proposal is troubling as well.
Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.
This about this, if you share something, you could be libel under the law if some ‘group’ decides what you shared is ‘disputed’.
The entire proposal reads like some democrat still hurt over the election that Hillary lost.
The simple fact is the left cannot handle the fact that the right has figured out how to use technology and has become better at it than the left in getting their message out. so to limit that the left needs to go after what they deem as illegal opinions of things.
But what the authors failed to realize is this very proposal is a double-edged sword which can impale them. It all depends on who is in charge, and who is determining what is ‘fake’ news.
Both sides do their fair share of fake news, but I don’t think the authors realize this double-edged problem. Instead of actually combating the fake news, they wish to try and outlaw it. They fail to realize this version of sharing news is nothing more than today’s version of gossiping around the water cooler.
Personally I fail to see how such a proposal isn’t a threat to the 1st amendment. But then again, the left has shown time and again that they dislike freedom of speech if it disagrees with their narrow-minded version of the world.