• ToadOfHypnosis@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    This is what happens when conspiracy theories and propaganda go wildly unchecked in our “free market.” You get a populace saturated with garbage information thinking they need to do insane stuff like this to “save America.” Right wing media is the worst aggregator of this crap.

    • jimjam5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 days ago

      Ya, we have the right of free speech, but hate-filled and verifiably false speech/statements should be punished or at least labeled with mandatory warnings that indicate them as such.

      • FaceDeer@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        8 days ago

        The problem with that kind of thing is always “who decides what’s hate-filled and false?” If there was a Federal government mechanism for that in the United States it would now be in the hands of Trump and the Republicans.

      • r0ertel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        As some of the other posters argued, this is a slippery slope to censorship by those in power, which does not allow for dissenting opinions to propogate.

        Given that free speech doesn’t mean that anybody needs to listen, I feel that the problem (and solution) lies in the conduit for the free speech. I don’t understand the complexities of the laws but have wondered if adjusting the laws to hold entities accountable for their actions would have a positive effect. For example, an idiot shouting from the town square has a limited audience, but if a newspaper picks up the message and promotes it, aren’t they partially responsible for that message?

        It gets tricky with opinion pieces, but we already have an established mechansm with newspapers’ opinion pages. One potential problem is that the current media companies enjoy no accountability, no content creation costs and profits from advertisers.

        On that topic, I’d even go so far as to argue that advertisers share in the accountability of providing funds to organizations that support harmful messages.

        There’s a lot more to this but would be interesting to see a country who has done it and if it had a net positive effect.

        • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          We have truth-in-advertising laws. You can’t make claims about a product that isn’t true.

          Politics is just a product, being sold by a candidate. If that candidate lies about the product they “represent,” and the voters rely on those promised lies, the politician should be held responsible for that lie.

          For instance, HitlerPig claimed for years that he had a first-rate health care plan that was two weeks away from release. Finally, during his debate with Harris, he admitted that all they had were “concepts” of a plan. Clearly, there was never a plan at all.

          Politicians should be held accountable for their deliberate lies.

          • Lasherz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            In practice I agree, but the crime of the left is being correct too early. I feel like that will play to our disadvantage when the media has cemented lies already that we’d be (I think) persecuted for correcting.