• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

French MPs vote to ban abortion websites that intimidate women

prometeus said:
Which part did you find difficult to grasp?

Yea that, if it has consequences.

Is that where you ability to comprehend stopped?

Is that what you thing this is? I bet you are not doing well on that front either.

You were never in.
Click to expand...

There's really very limited consequences for misinformation. For instance:

In New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, the Supreme Court ruled that news sources can report false information as long as there is no malicious intent.

Private companies life Facebook has internal abilities to police fake news, the government shys away from bringing actions because there's not anyway to enforce and litigate tens of thousands of sites reporting false information.

Even medical related sites have problems with inaccurate information being published.

Actually there are more Internet laws regarding "product marketing" where deceptive information is published to bait people to commit fraud.

But just outright fake information - or reports - it's hard to nail the bastards.

The problem is defining the word fake...there are three tiers to “fake” news which is satire, yellow journalism, and hoaxes.

The government has problems because of the broad scope of meanings around the first amendment. Intent is the main obstacle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom