Ask Slashdot: Is Deliberately Misleading People On the Internet Free Speech? 503
Slashdot reader dryriver writes:
Before anyone cries "free speech must always be free," let me qualify the question. Under a myriad of different internet sites and blogs are these click-through adverts that promise quick "miracle cures" for everything from toenail fungus to hair loss to tinnitus to age-related skin wrinkles to cancer. A lot of the ads begin with copy that reads "This one weird trick cures....." Most of the "cures" on offer are complete and utter crap designed to lift a few dollars from the credit cards of hundreds of thousands of gullible internet users. The IQ boosting pills that supposedly give you "amazing mental focus after just 2 weeks" don't work at all. Neither do any of the anti-ageing or anti-wrinkle creams, regardless of which "miracle berry" extract they put in them this year. And if you try to cure your cancer with an Internet remedy rather than seeing a doctor, you may actually wind up dead.
So the question -- is peddling this stuff online really "free speech"? You are promising something grandiose in exchange for hard cash that you know doesn't deliver any benefits at all.
Long-time Slashdot reader apraetor counters, "But how do you determine what is 'true'?" And Slashdot reader ToTheStars argues "It's already established that making claims about medicine is subject to scrutiny by the FDA (or the relevant authority in your jurisdiction)." But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Leave your best thoughts in the comments. Is deliberately misleading people on the internet free speech?
So the question -- is peddling this stuff online really "free speech"? You are promising something grandiose in exchange for hard cash that you know doesn't deliver any benefits at all.
Long-time Slashdot reader apraetor counters, "But how do you determine what is 'true'?" And Slashdot reader ToTheStars argues "It's already established that making claims about medicine is subject to scrutiny by the FDA (or the relevant authority in your jurisdiction)." But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre? Leave your best thoughts in the comments. Is deliberately misleading people on the internet free speech?
truth in advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Making it a free speech issue is taking it too far, it's always really just been about whether it's false advertising / fair trade / fraud / etc. We already have a lot of laws that govern what businesses can and cannot say to customers in their efforts to sell them things. None of them are free speech violations, they're consumer protection limits. Enforcement is the real problem.
Re:truth in advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. This is an old problem that was, at least legally, largely solved decades and centuries ago. Slapping “on the Internet” on the description doesn’t change the fundamental issue or make it a new problem.
It’s like when we have to explain that a patent is lousy because all they did was slap “on a computer” onto an idea that’s been around for our entire lives. Fraud is fraud. False advertising is false advertising. Whether it’s on the Internet or not really shouldn’t make a lick of difference.
Re:truth in advertising (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about "legal" but "enforceable". They are different, but related.
Re: (Score:3)
In that case Amazon is responsible. Amazon must police the products sold via its web site. In the past they have banned "hoverboards" due to exploding batteries and solar eclipse glasses due to inadequate protection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did the same thing with the hoverboards, recalled them all and destroyed all stock, even though some were fine.
In the UK the law is that the seller is responsible. In cases where Amazon is just "fulfilling" the order for someone else, they are still responsible because they handle the payment, they handle returns and they handle warranty issues. Any reasonable judge is going to consider them to be the seller, and they rarely bother to turn up to Small Claims Court for anything less than £10
Re: (Score:3)
> That means nothing.
No. The only thing that matters is that the customer was made right. He got his "eye" in the real biblical sense of the term. Nothing else really matters at that point.
If Amazon took a loss then that's part of their cost of doing business. They choose to care about their reputation and bear the costs of protecting it.
Your "envy" at someone gaining when they "shouldn't have" really isn't terribly relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
You make an interesting point. If we're going to pretend we're some free, market-based society, then there have to be consequences for deliberately misleading people on the internet. Since markets can only exist within some regulatory framework (even if that regulatory framework consists only of the person committing fraud getting his ass kicked), then of course
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why there are various laws in some places that for example make a credit card company jointly liable if its card is used to make a purchase and the original seller doesn't make good any damage.
Also, deliberately using a limited liability company structure to take the customer's money and run is a good way to get your corporate veil pierced and the people behind that company fined or in jail. Typically the limited liability protects a company's owners/investors if the company is properly run but its
Re: (Score:2)
In the past if a company in country X was breaching advertising standards the regulators in that country could close them down.
There has always been mail order across borders. Many magazines end with page after page of mail order advertising.
Its true that across borders there is less protection fraud. Look in the back of Mexican magazines and there will be an advertisement along the lines of "How to avoid U.S. immigration laws? Learn how! Send $5 to this foreign address." and the response will be a piece of paper sent via post that reads "Don't emigrate."
If you dont want to get screwed by someone in far off nation X, your firs
Re:truth in advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, laws against false adevertising are a free speech violation. That's because those laws were made in the realisation that no right can be absolute, that in any society there will always be rights that clash, and that the right to make a buck does not extend to lying to impact someone else's health and property.
It is people who actually want their speech to be privileged, or immature teenagers, who think that free speech is absolute, without actually checking their facts. It has always been subject to prescribed limits, all society is is haggling over the price.
Re: (Score:3)
There, FTFY
Ah, you are making the favorite argument of totalitarians. G
Re: (Score:3)
This is the typical slippery slope argument made by people who want to censor speech in order to benefit their own agendas..ie for the opportunity to spread their own lies without fear of contest.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right of course. The problem we're facing now is that one of those 'things' corporations are selling to targeted audiences via social media is news and 'news' (ie. propaganda). Anyone can pay facebook & al to promote their views
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big problem is with the internet people’s natural sarcasm is being misinterpreted.
I remember Stephen Colbert being invited to talk in a republican conference because the sponsor of it didn’t realize that he was playing an act, and trying to be the most extreme republican news anchor as possible to try to show how crazy some of these ideas are.
Also the rise in flat Earthers probably came from some sarcastic comment showing how just dumping scientific sounding words can explain things
Re: (Score:2)
The most amazing conspiracy theory I have come across is those that think SpaceX's landings of rockets are faked. I mean for fucks sake wait for the next landing at Cape Canaveral and go and watch it for yourself. Thousands of people have now probably watched a Falcon9 landing with their own eyes, but hey.
Re: (Score:2)
Thousands of people have now probably watched a Falcon9 landing with their own eyes
Probably more like hundreds of thousands.
Is it legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm taking the conservative approach: If it's legal it's free speech. Otherwise the advertisers wouldn't risk posting said info.
I can't accept that "if it's free speech it's legal" approach. Otherwise speech promoting violence and hatred would be legal.
It depends (Score:2)
There are kinds of deception that are illegal, fraud & perjury both come to mind quickly. Making false medical claims can also run afoul of the FDA rules.
This is the kind of thing that depends on the circumstances of whatever is going on, not on merely whether or not someone said something that isn't true on the internet. Commercial speech, in particular, has more restrictions than other kinds, so there isn't just one answer that can sum up every case, you'd have to go through the law to see what does
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Hate speech" is a bullshit term used to mean "speech I find unsavory" and therefore should not hold any weight.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hate speech" is a bullshit term used to mean "speech I find unsavory" and therefore should not hold any weight.
Hate speech is also used to silence people. So enjoy the slippery slop we're now seeing in Canada. The Liberal Party(federal) pushed M103 through. That motion directly pushed a "if you speak up against muslims/engage in islamophobia/etc" it's very very bad. 7mo later, those same people who said "it won't impact free speech" are now pushing blasphemy laws to protect islam from criticism in any form and using m103 as the basis of it.
There were multiple attempts by the conservative party to get it reworded
Re: (Score:3)
Trying to pass blasphemy laws? Shit son. Canada has had a law against blasphemy since 1892. And just this year the liberal govt has put forth bill C-51 which will act to repeal that law. But don't let that get in the way of a good screed.
Hopefully those who read your post will actually look to find out what M103 actually is and what it actually says rather than believing the garbage you wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Blasphemy laws are slowly changing the world over so you can speak out against any religion*.
*Islam not included.
Re: (Score:3)
What bills have been presented? Which of the bills that the commons is currently reading/debating since M103 passed (at the end of march) are the ones regarding blasphemy? Be specific.. include the numbers.
Here.. I'll help. here's the list of bills from the Liberals in the current session of parliament
https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/... [www.parl.ca]
Please point them out. Since they're trying to pass laws that must mean there are already bills before the commons.. right?
And you're the one telling everyone that M-103 is ha
Re: (Score:2)
That's a very poor moral framework, and cedes too much power to the legal system. Legal does not equal moral and vice versa. I agree with the point you're making, but I believe putting morality subsequent to "legal" or "free" is one way we get into trouble.
Re:Is it legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, hate speech is free speech. Of course, there is no requirement that people listen to the speech.
The violence one is a bit tricky since far too many people are now equating disagreement with violence (words hurt campaign).
On the internet? (Score:2)
There can be no generalized answer to this question. Any particular case would have to be decided on its merits. As mentioned, the FDA could punish them for making unsupported claims about a cure. The FTC could come after them for false advertising. But in any case, "on the internet" has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are no special rules for any of this stuff that apply only to the internet.
Short answer: yes (Score:2)
Yes, it's free speech, just as it's free speech to deliberately mislead people in print or when speaking. But just as with in-print or speaking, deliberately making false statements opens you to the backlash when you're fact-checked and proven to be knowingly lying to people, along with the possibility of being sued for libel or slander (since you're talking about deliberate untruths, the public-figure exception will be exceptionally hard to hide behind).
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we've had fake ads and other false statements since print began..
I think the better question is: is lying still considered free speech in America?
I believe it's a resolute 'yes' unless someone can sue another successfully, then it stops.
So you can say whatever you want until it's decided what you're saying isn't allowed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
tradeoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
For most of the past, free speech has come with the practical limitation that the person making the speech was associated to it, and had some burden of personal accountability. So, whether out of shame, counter-arguments, not being able to hide behind a fictitious agent, etc., people making demonstrably false statements would have limits to the quantity and quality of their speech. And, by the way, people's gullibility of it.
Now we have this new channel where everyone, including fake names and anonymous agents, are equal. In your Facebook feed, everyone has an equal voice, which contrary to some people's original idea of the internet, doesn't now make it possible for the best and most thoughtful opinions to be spread, but rather the worst. And not everyone is smart enough to tell the difference, or even has the time.
Newspapers, journalists, universities, governments, etc. previously served the role as our filter of what was "high quality". For good and bad, of course, because they're not always right.
But now we took off the filter. How do we get some of it back without taking away the parts we like?
Re:tradeoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
After the Revolutionary War, there was a debate on the proposed new constitution. Many of the essays that we now cherish as The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers were published anonymously. In some cases, we still don't know who wrote them.
Short view, Long view (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom leads to mistakes in the short term; critical thought and independence in the long term.
Censorship leads to safety in the short term; naivete and dependence in the long term.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It never has.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It never has.
It means freedom from government consequences. It always has.
If the state can persecute you for "false speech", then it's not free anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the average German who is naÃve about restriction on Nazi propaganda. But it does appear that the average alt-right fanboi who is all about freeze peach is
Re:Short view, Long view (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I can observe the exact opposite.
In the US (and other areas where information is free and available), I can see an incredible naivete, the willingness to believe any kind of bullshit offered, believed with zero evidence and even against unsurmountable evidence against it.
Yet I do know countries with a tight restriction and control of information where people respond warily to anything you present to them and will critically test it for validity, desperate to actually find out what IS true.
There is a difference between speech and a contrac (Score:2)
Speech as in âoetry this miracle cure, put hot sauce in your eyes to make you see betterâ is free speech.
A sale as in âoetry this miracle cure, itâ(TM)s $25 hot sauce you can put in your eyesâ is a sales contract. You promise a cure and you either deliver or you donâ(TM)t. If you donâ(TM)t, itâ(TM)s called swindling, false advertising and a number of other things.
You can say you have a miracle cure but when you exchange goods youâ(TM)re entering a legal contract.
Commercial speech is less than fully protected (Score:5, Informative)
The US Supreme Court has long held that Commercial Speech [cornell.edu] (speech that proposes an economic transaction) has reduced 1st amendment protection, particularly when said speech is false, misleading or coercive.
Free speech isn't absolute, the concept is more about freedom from prior restraint than freedom from all possible consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
^^^WHAT HE SAID^^^
Re: (Score:3)
You mean I can put hot sauce in my eyes when I'm reading Slashdot and I'll see punctuation where I see gibberish? Shut up and take my money!
Free Speech According to Which Standard? (Score:2)
While in Russia, there was a different metric for free speech than I've seen in the United States. My Thai friends also see differences in Thailand. I see additional differences against conservative viewpoints in Western Europe, and Canada.
Which country are you using as the metric for "Free Speech?" You mention the FDA, so I assume you mean an American viewpoint, but that should likely be explicitly stated, rather than implied.
Re: (Score:2)
The Soviet Union's constitution guaranteed free speech, be did not allow propaganda. Since the soviet government was the sole arbitrator of what constituted propaganda, the guarantee of free speech was meaningless.
Money (Score:5, Informative)
Once money is involved, it's no longer free speech, it becomes "commercial speech."
Commercial speech operates under a different set of rules, with significantly more restrictions.
"False or misleading" commercial speech is explicitly against the law.
There is some wiggle room for "puffery" (world's best hamburger.)
There is also some wiggle room as long as warnings or disclaimers are included.
Some warnings and disclaimers are what we'd call "compelled speech," because the government requires businesses to say them.
Compelled speech is pretty much the opposite of free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
I ...
I have no idea if this is an extremely serendipitous random spam post, or expert tongue-in-cheek humor.
Ad's are not free speech protected (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Are you serious or sarcastic? It's hard to tell.
I don't understand how people can argue that big companies are bad for us and big government is good. Both are bad. The difference with a company is that no one is forced to buy their product or service, with a government there is no choice. If I had to choose between the two then I'll take the big companies, they don't have people with guns to take my money if I don't like their services.
I hear this with oil companies, that there is no choice. Sure there
Re: (Score:2)
Just like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater (Score:3)
isn't free speech, neither is deliberately misleading speech.
Let's face it, half of all people are of below average intelligence and those people are more likely to be fooled. It's BAD ENOUGH when there are "News" institutions whose adherence to proper journalistic standards (like vetting commentators and sources and getting independent confirmation) is weak.
It's DOWN RIGHT CRIMINAL when people (or governments! Russia I'm talking to you) deliberately mislead people for their own purposes. Those easily fooled people can be swayed into doing all sorts of things that are not in the public (or their own) self interest.
Short of genetic engineering (don't worry, that's my field, I'm working on it!), we're not going to be raising the average IQ of people very quickly. (And as far as getting more than half of all people to be better than average, you'd better talk to your local mathematician). However, what we COULD do is provide a better, BASIC education for all citizens which would be the first line of defense against unfounded, unverified claims. An ability to use critical thinking (perhaps with a dose of basic economics and science for living in this commercial technological age) should be a prerequisite for living in this modern world, too bad it would be politically impossible to make it a requirement for voting.
I have heard that the real downfall of American democracy began (sorry to say) with Reagan. Even though it can be claimed that some of his ideas were good and he was inspiring to millions, his de-regulation of the economy unfortunately (from what I have heard, I was too young to understand) extended to education.
His, "let competition reign" philosophy broke the covenant of the American educational system so that (again, from what I understand), schools became increasingly dependent on their local circumstances. Hence, schools in rich districts could hire good teachers and had good facilities whereas schools in poor and rural districts fell farther and farther behind (not that they were equal in the first place). In this way, the (I think) nationwide premise that all Americans be given a good basic education was shattered; this has resulted in the paradox of Americans leading the world in science and technology and Nobel prizes (with a healthy influx of immigrants of course) yet with abysmal high school graduation rates and scores when compared to other wealthy nations.
Unfortunately, I don't see an easy way out; as this last year has proven the "moron" (not my words, the Secretary of State said it!) having been elected by the under educated bottom half, is running the show. He (and they) will continue to put into place policies that will further widen the divide between the educated and the poorly educated; between the professional class and between people who don't understand the scientific principle. I'm not quite sure where this will end up; the educated "elite" (when did being "the best" become a dirty word?) still retains power and money but it is unclear if the under educated will ever be able to see past the lies the leaders they elected tell them. Even then, it'll likely take a generation to rebuild the damage the Reagan revolution has done and truly rebuild an America that is restored equal opportunity THROUGH EDUCATION to all.
Then again, as a Republican Senator just said, our duly elected leader might trigger "World War III". Well in that case, we won't even have to wait for climate change to do us in, I guess our civilization and maybe even species just wasn't meant to last.
Re: (Score:2)
Commercial Speech? Free Speech? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
dystopia (Score:2)
This question makes me sick
Americans sure have given up on freedom.
People have lied (Score:2)
since language was invented. Perhaps before.
Re: People have lied (Score:2)
Before deciding, take the Internet out of it. (Score:2)
Before asking a question about free-speech on the internet, always take the internet out of the question.
Is yelling fire in a crowded space protected by free speech? No. Clearly, and we know why.
Is standing on a street corner telling people that the sky is falling protected speech? Yes, I think so. Please tell me if you disagree.
The thing is we know a lot about the person standing on the street corner spewing lies, but ironically - on the internet we often don't know much about the person feeding us fa
When did we discard "let the buyer beware"? (Score:2)
We have ample evidence that regulatory agencies can be manipulated by political pressure / lobbying. Let's say the FDA becomes the final arbiter of what is "real treatment". If someone were to discover a simple and inexpensive cure for depression - to what lengths would the Pharmaceutical industry go to get it labeled "fake" and preserve their $14.5 billion industry?
Do we really want to be prevented from ever making a mistake in judgement? In this post-modern society who are you willing to trust to define
Lying is not protected speech (Score:2)
Making false statements [wikipedia.org] is against the law in the United States, it is not protected speech. Freedom of speech (originally freedom of the press) is meant to protect the freedom to express opinions, especially unpopular ones, or opinions contrary to government doctrine. The Constitution has never attempted to protect lying.
Voice of America is 75 years old (Score:2)
The United States has maintained a propaganda "news service" since 1942, broadcast in dozens of languages around the world. Before American Exceptionalists want to whine about what they pretend other countries are doing - there's as much evidence to support that Russia did buttkiss last year as there is that Bill Clinton sent a hitman after Vince Foster - maybe you should cease the hypocrisy first?
No more Weekly World News? (Score:2)
As other posters have noted, take "The Internet" out of it. People are still in thrall of the digital sophistication of the Internet, though those of us in the technology business know how easy it is for anyone to put up a website and post what they want. It gives everyone a printing press, and most of those digital tabloids are worse than the Weekly World News, i.e. they are not merely idiotic, but also uninteresting.
People who believe Alex Jones are also the sort who would believe the Weekly World News.
you're over thinking it. (Score:2)
Free Speech != Truthiness (Score:2)
The WHOLE point of free speech is that you can say whatever the fuck you want -- and people can't censor you for that.
Whether it is _actually_ true or not, is beside the point.
Now this may be slander, but that is a different issue.
What will snake oil salesmen do now? (Score:2)
"If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period." President Obama, speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009
Defamation/lies are not protected by 'free speach' (Score:2)
That is what the term slander (spoken) and libel (anything besides spoken) mean.
Also, free speech only means the government can't interfere with you saying something as long as it is not defamatory or recklessly endangering people's lives (shouting fire in a crowded room)
It does not mean:
1) Companies refusing to help you publish something.
2) People refusing to listen/obey you.
3) Refusing to pay taxes or otherwise refuse to abide by general government rules that are not targeted at your free speech. But th
FTC has jurisdiction (Score:2)
The FTC has jurisdiction over this stuff. In general the FTC hasn't been as aggressive in pursuing this sort of thing. Maybe the false advertising part of the FTC could be broken out and made into its own agency?
It could be the equivalent of Britain's ASA, but run by the government and with actual power to levy fines etc.
You're assuming free speech is good... (Score:5, Interesting)
... then in effect are asking for a definition of "free speech" after the fact. Logically, this doesn't make much sense. However, if you *do* start from the axiom "free speech is good" you need to either find or construct a definition that is consistent with that axiom. In the meantime assuming that axiom does allow you to examine whether individual cases can be covered as "free speech".
If you start with the axiom that free speech is *always* good, then unless you think selling fraudulent medicine is good then your definition of "free speech" needs to exclude that.
If you start with the axiom that free speech is only *sometimes* good, then your definition can encompass selling fraudulent medicine; however that also raises the possibility that you should *sometimes* oppose free speech.
There are some people who clearly believe that free speech entails complete freedom from legal consequences -- including for libel, or deliberate misinformation that predictably harms or even kills someone. However I suspect there's an element of sloppy thinking there. We've all been raised to regard "free speech" as inviolable, so adopting a broader concept of "free speech" is a handy way of sneaking other things into the tent.
Shouting "fire!" in a theatre (Score:2)
The legality of shouting "fire!" in a theatre are not as clear as people commonly think. Even the Supreme Court judge who used it in an example walked back his opinion on the subject.
"Commercial Speech" enjoys less protection (Score:2)
http://www.lawpublish.com/amen... [lawpublish.com]
Advertising Is Protected by the First Amendment
The question is often asked: Does the First Amendment protect advertisements? Advertising is indeed protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, advertising or "commercial speech" enjoys somewhat less First Amendment protection from governmental encroachment than other types of speech. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, may regulate speech that is found to be "deceptive."
Leave the "fire" simile alone already (Score:2)
The comparison was first involved to convict a man advocating against America's involvement in the First World War [wikipedia.org]. His agitation against it was deemed analogous to yelling fire in the crowded theater.
Obviously, that precedent was undone in the 60-70ies, when being against a war became all the rage.
Speech is speech. Deal with it.
Question Does Not Parse (Score:2)
Misinformation and disinformation are 'speech'. 'Free speech' refers to an ideal, which is sometimes enshrined into law to varying degrees. If you're attempting to ask "should disinformation be protected as 'free speech'?" then we have an actual question. It's generally held that deterring/remedying fraud is one of the most valid reasons for the existence of government. The summary questions if fraud should be considered protected under 'free speech'. I'm gonna have to say no. Let's make fraud legal and wat
Of course it is brought up. (Score:2)
But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre?
The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a bullshit statement from a bullshit case because of a bullshit law. [history.com]
Holmes used his statement to justify the imprisonment of draft dissenters during world war one in clear contradiction of the first amendment which even he admitted, eventually [popehat.com]. I will say it again, this [slashdot.org] is bad law, and anyone who wants to have a serious discussion about free speak should not utter it in polite company.
That being said, yeah the quality of advertising and accuracy of advertiser
The question conflates several different issues (Score:2)
Is deliberately misleading people free speech? Absolutely.
Is speech whose primary purpose is to solicit a commercial transaction generally accepted as an exception to free speech? Yes.
Is fraud speech? No, but misleading speech is just one element of fraud.
Your examples probably qualify as fraud (Score:2)
what about sci journos? (Score:2)
Free To Say It (Score:2)
Not normally (Score:2)
Not normally. But it is if any of the following apply:
- Elon Musk says it.
- It uses blockchains.
Problem is one of intent, not truth (Score:5, Informative)
Telling the truth can be bad. Lying can be good. Say you're at a mini-mart and an upset woman runs up to you saying her husband is trying to kill her, then runs into the bathroom. Then an angry man runs in holding a knife screaming, "where is that bitch, I'm gonna kill her." Do you tell him the truth? Or do you deliberately mislead him by lying, and say she ran out the back door?
Speaking the truth or lying does not necessarily correlate to good/bad. Your intent in saying what you say does - whether you're trying to help or harm. Unfortunately, intent is something internal to your mind. You can guess what another person's intent probably is, and in rare cases you can eliminate any other possibility and infer their true intent. But most of the time you can't be sure. And basing legality or punishment on something that most of the time you can't be sure of is just setting up your system for all kinds of trouble.
Take the anti-vaccination movement for example. It's based on statistical error (emphasizing single anecdotes over overall trends) or logical error (believing the testimony of a famous celebrity unskilled in the field over the testimony of a non-famous expert in the field). I would dearly love to ban it from the Internet. But if we set that precedent, what if some time in the future the conspiracy theory becomes true and the government is pacifying the population with mind-altering drugs under the guise of vaccination? Your well-intentioned ban in favor of the truth has then set a precedent allowing a misleading falsehood to be presented as the truth, and the actual truth suppressed.
The more I think about it, the more strongly I feel that banning is not the answer. Educating the populace is, so most of them will not make the aforementioned errors. Yeah we're never going to convince 100% of the people that vaccines are good. But 99% should be good enough for most purposes. And I really don't think the tradeoff in future potential abuse is worth it just to get that final 1% to comply.
The fundamental premise behind Democracy is that The People are on average smart enough to usually make the right decision. If you feel we need policies which deprive The People of the right to make those decisions, then you're basically admitting The People aren't smart enough to make the right decision, and thus Democracy doesn't work. (I can actually seen an argument for a benevolent oligarchy being better than democracy. But if you're going to argue for that, then don't even bother with the pretense of pretending to support freedom of speech.)
Rewording (Score:2)
Speech is free if the authorities will not censure the speaker.
False advertising is sometimes censured, so it is either not free (conservative) or partially free (risky).
A better question is, should false advertising be free?
Wrong Q. Correct A is "What's the alternative?" (Score:2)
So the question -- is peddling this stuff online really "free speech"? You are promising something grandiose in exchange for hard cash that you know doesn't deliver any benefits at all.
That's the wrong question - because any claim that there is ANY subset of speech that is NOT free speech pitches you over the cliff and onto the slippery slope:
* If there is a non-free subset of speech it's allegedly OK to restrict it.
* But that opens the can of worms: How - and by whom - is this subset defin
"Fire in a crowded theater" was coined ... (Score:2)
But are other things the equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre?
Did you know that the "(falsely) cry fire in a crowded theatre" argument was coined by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. - in a Supreme Court opinion (for Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)) that it was legal to suppress such speech?
Did you know the speech in question was printing and distributing pamphlets opposing the draft for WW I?
Free speech is misunderstood (Score:2)
Free speech does not mean that anyone can say anything at anytime. It means that the government cannot suppress some forms of speech sometimes. Some forms of speech are definitely banned like hate speech, incitation to crime, divulgation of intellectual property, and many others. Peddlers of false cures are not protected by free speech but could be brought to justice under the heading of Truth in Advertising. See Tina.org
Re:Slashdot readers should sure hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
then stop with the FUD that portrays those companies as actively working against the interests of society and most people.
All companies will actively work against the interests of society and most people if it is within their own interests to do so. Microsoft & the rest of the big tech companies do so everyday by actively evading paying their fair share of taxes.
Tax Avoidance (Score:2)
Truth in advertising and publishing is a different issue to tax avoidance. Certainly both are motivated by self interest however taxation is already defined in legalisation.
Your reference to "companies do so everyday by actively evading paying their fair share of taxes" isn't (illegal) tax evasion but your opinion. To resolve (legal) tax avoidance you need to (1) write simpler laws which (2) levy tax on corporate income without (3) penalising saving and investment. Finally (4) either (a) employ extra-jurdis
Re: (Score:3)
If a company can make more money by poisoning the local water table that it's own employees drink from. Then that is exactly what it will do.
History shows that to be true 100% of the time. Only by introducing regulations and laws to make it more expensive to be dirty rather than clean have companies started doing the right thing. If you need proof of what the do a does had how it affects you that is it. Take a look at any picture of the major us cities in the 1970s vs today. Look at the sky. That foggy
Re: (Score:3)
He might be but I'm not. I have first hand experience with a corporation that chose to pollute and take the fine rather than do the right thing. It was cheaper for them to just pay the fine.
What can you really expect. We haven't held corporations to civilized standards for DECADES. We expect and encourage them to SCREW EVERYONE except the almighty stockholder. This isn't just a matter of shareholder lawsuits, it's a prevailing cultural expectation.
THAT ship sailed a long time ago and it shows no sign of com
Re: Slashdot readers should sure hope so (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, TATA Group, TCS is TATA Groups main moneymaker. And they make money by exploiting Indian IT worker and the H1B system.
Very charitable ...
Re: (Score:3)
Plenty of businesses have ditched Microsoft's particular brand of spreadsheet and word processor. There is nothing special about either. Microsoft didn't invent either one or even make a terribly good one.
The idea that you "need" their brand of a 30 year old solved problem is support for the basic destructiveness of the modern corporation.
Re:Slashdot readers should sure hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
And there's a moderation system here, theoretically designed to judge the quality of speech without actually restricting it. Granted, as any forum can become something of an echo-chamber then perhaps it is not perfect, but usually poor-quality comments get moderated down and high-quality comments moderated up.
As to the FUD about Microsoft in particular, Microsoft's history since its inception has been fraught with nefariousness. MS-DOS was essentially a clone of CP/M, at least as far as the particulars of the user interface are concerned. At one point Microsoft used an OEM licensing model that essentially froze-out competing OSes because the OEM had to pay for Microsoft for all personal computers sold whether or not Microsoft's OSes were wanted by the end-customer. Microsoft over the years has attempted to freeze-out competition through writing their own function-alike software and then once it becomes popular, writing proprietary components into it and pushing for those proprietary components to be widely implemented such that competitors' software is unable to work.
If Microsoft software was high quality, bug-free, security-hole-free, then perhaps there wouldn't be so much anger at Microsoft's business practices, but Microsoft's software has historically been both bug-riddled and terribly insecure and open for exploitation. Entire industries have been built to attempt to make up for mediocre software. It's no surprise when a new target-for-compatiblity becomes concerned, as history has demonstrated that by introducing compatibility, Microsoft will break that compatibility when it feels the time is right to get customers to migrate to Microsoft off of whatever previous software they used, and the cycle repeats.
Re: (Score:3)
you only have to look at comments called out as shills or downvoted to oblivion for when they legitimately comment something that differs from the group think
I completely agree, people use moderation to silence dissenting opinions. This is why I opted out of the moderation thing a long time ago.
As for people being called shills, it always has been a ludicrous accusation; even if it's obvious that some readers or even editors have agendas (like Beauhd and his endless pro-Apple propaganda) it's pretty clear that they're doing it out of misguided loyalty to a brand that they think make them look cool rather than for some form of monetary reward.
Re: (Score:3)
you only have to look at comments called out as shills or downvoted to oblivion for when they legitimately comment something that differs from the group think
It's called Confirmation Bias. Most people will mod up what confirms their beliefs and mod down what doesn't. Such is human nature. In order for people to be objective, they would have to be able to consider the idea that their beliefs might be wrong. I would call that: Optimism Bias :P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations."
- Adam Smith
Re: (Score:3)
"The real tragedy of the poor is the poverty of their aspirations." - Adam Smith
While I think that is true to some extent, it ignores the larger picture. Adam Smith tried to make this free enterprise system appear to be a noble crusade. Let's be frank, it's not. It arose out of necessity. We live and have always lived with scarcity. Resource scarcity and now in modern times, economic scarcity. The system we have today's sole purpose it to manage scarcity. It is not noble, it's just a necessity based on circumstance. Having said that, it's the best thing we've conceived to date
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, however; They're never "carefully defined" they're judged by the court.
In a civil case you'd have to prove you're actually a complete blithering idiot and really believe goji berries can cure cancer.
In a criminal case, the prosecution would have to prove you knew you were going to hasten the deaths of all the other idiots that binged on your berries instead of chemo.
The civil case is winnable, but fruitless because the company has no assets. The criminal case is probably too difficult to make and doe
Re: (Score:3)
I would be very careful with this.
What I think we could agree on is this: If I make a claim about a product, the product has to fulfill that claim or I shall be liable for false advertising or even worse. E.g. if I claim that I have the cure for cancer here but only if you forgo conventional therapy, I sell it to you with this premise and you rely on my product exclusively, then die and it can be shown in court that not only my product is complete bunk but you would have had a sensible chance of survival or
Re: SeX with a GOAT (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like trying to argue that because some people use guns to commit crimes, that guns should be banned.
Hotel rooms are used to commit mass murder. We should ban hotel rooms.