Michigan GOP Lawmaker Floats Bill To Register and Fine 'Fact Checkers' (detroitnews.com) 283
A Michigan lawmaker who's been at the center of efforts to question the 2020 election introduced a bill Tuesday that would require "fact checkers" to register with the state. From a report: Rep. Matt Maddock, R-Milford, wrote the legislation, which was co-sponsored by eight other Republican House members, about five months after Maddock floated the idea of licensing fact checkers on Twitter. The "Fact Checker Registration Act" defines a fact checker as someone who publishes in print or online in Michigan, is paid by a fact-checking organization and is a member of the International Fact Check Network.
The network is a reference to the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network, a unit launched by the journalism group in 2015 to train and develop best practices in fact checking, Maddock said. The bill requires qualifying fact checkers to file proof of a $1 million fidelity bond with the Secretary of State's office, which will be tasked with developing the "form and manner of registration and filing." An "affected person" could bring a civil action in any county district court to claim the bond for "any wrongful conduct that is a violation of the laws of this state." The bond could be forfeited at the discretion of the judge for "demonstrable harm" stemming from something a fact checker wrote, Maddock wrote. Fact checkers found to be in violation of the registry requirements could be fined $1,000 per day of violation.
The network is a reference to the Poynter Institute's International Fact-Checking Network, a unit launched by the journalism group in 2015 to train and develop best practices in fact checking, Maddock said. The bill requires qualifying fact checkers to file proof of a $1 million fidelity bond with the Secretary of State's office, which will be tasked with developing the "form and manner of registration and filing." An "affected person" could bring a civil action in any county district court to claim the bond for "any wrongful conduct that is a violation of the laws of this state." The bond could be forfeited at the discretion of the judge for "demonstrable harm" stemming from something a fact checker wrote, Maddock wrote. Fact checkers found to be in violation of the registry requirements could be fined $1,000 per day of violation.
An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Attempting to use the power of government to shut down voices they don't like (while whining about Trump and Twitter and Facebook and being cancelled). The hypocrisy is bottomless.
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Funny)
I nominate Vladimir Putin to be the first registered Michigan fact checker. So far, he has provided the most accurate, wide-ranging, and effective guide to the truth for many Michigan state reps such as Rep. Maddock. Fact checkers of the world, unite!
Re:Goofy politics. Republicans are Re-Moneycans. (Score:4, Interesting)
Before the GOP was the Grand Old Party. Now it is Goofy Outrageous Politics.
Hell even back in the 1980s it had already become 'Greed Over Principle'.
Re:Goofy politics. Republicans are Re-Moneycans. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll agree to a law that makes fact checkers register as such as soon as there is a comparable bill that forces people to register as being truthful before they can spout facts (just to be clear this would apply to both sides of the political spectrum).
It is silly to have a law that "fact checkers" have to register yet everyone can spew whatever lies they wish.
I guess we could stop calling them "fact checkers" and instead call them "the other side of the lie exposers".
Re: (Score:3)
Guess it means Fox News will have to register with them.
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, they never use the word "fact". It's too distracting from their messaging.
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the idiot who authored this bill thinks that it will apply to all fact checkers whose opinions are being read by Michigan residents. How will they identify whether a fact checker is being read by Michigan residents.
I agree that this is an attack on free s
Re: (Score:2)
I might see some merit in this legislation if it also mandated that those who have been found to be spreading false facts (ie lying) were subject to similar fines and made to publish corrections.
Re: (Score:3)
I might see some merit in this legislation if it also mandated that those who have been found to be spreading false facts (ie lying) were subject to similar fines and made to publish corrections.
Additionally, those who invoke the legislation against the "fact checker" should be liable for similar fines (and court costs) if their complaint is found to be baseless.
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulation of fact checkers, with the listed substantial fines and a monetary barrier to entry is exactly what you to do stop people who call out the lies.
With this kind of legislation, they can crate so much paperwork, registering in every state with all of the individual arcane nuances, along with insurance costs, penalty fees, filing requirements etc. That's how you suppress information. By making it too expensive and difficult to call out the lies.
Fact checking can be as basic as taking a misused quote and putting it into context by showing the phrases before and after the soundbyte that was misused. that's just posting a video of the actual speech. Why would that simple bit of showing reality in the face of deception be something I need to spend 6 months doing paperwork and buying insurance for?
This is basic suppression of speech. Sponsored by the party of The Big Lie.
They want people afraid to point out the lies.
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
They want people afraid to point out the lies.
That's the 'glass-half-empty' point of view. The 'glass-half-full' point of view is that not only is fact checking working, it is working so well they feel compelled to try and put an end to it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the 'glass-half-empty' point of view. The 'glass-half-full' point of view is that not only is fact checking working, it is working so well they feel compelled to try and put an end to it.
Is it really working though? Did anyone stop lying becaquse a fact checker called them out? Did anyone ever changed their opinion because of this?
I'm not saying calling out BS isn't important or shouldn't be done but as far as it working...
Re: (Score:3)
Before The Big Lie, the previous Big Lie was that fact checkers were biased and made shit up. Because those God fearing all-American politicians have NEVER been biased. Technology is causing troubles for old school politicians who never had to deal with their lies becoming public until after the elections are over.
The rise of conspiracy theories as mainstream beliefs also fuels this. What their chosen orange savior says is always the truth, by definition, and therefore anyone who tries to use facts in op
Re: (Score:3)
"Nonsense, this is no more onerous than a notary bond"
But notaries deal in legal matters, and give out legal advice on questions of law, they aren't simply dealing in free speech or journalism.
Re: (Score:3)
"Fact checks are being used to shape and manipulate information at mass scale..."
Yeah, like Google sinking some web pages further down in search results. I'm not sure if or what should be done about that. Maybe search engine options that make it easy to turn on and off a larger selection of 'search biases/features'.
"... Notaries do not offer legal advice; a paralegal isn't even allowed to do that."
Notaries can offer legal advice on questions of law that fall under their expertise. These are clear and well
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Informative)
They are purporting to have some special expertise in judging the truthiness of statements being made by others.
No they aren't.
When they point out something is not factual they back it up with sources. The reader is then able to evaluate the sources and decide for themselves. The fact checkers merely assemble relevant information, and in some cases digest and explain it.
These fact checkers have setup what is basically a cartel
LOL. Make yourself a Twitter account and start fact checking people, and don't expect the cartel to stop you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, except in some cases, it seems that someone gets fact checked (whether justified or not) and their content gets pulled or the a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have the links offhand, but there were examples in the somewhat early days of the pandemic, when some content, some of it even put out by licensed medical MD doctors, was taken down because what they said questioned the "official" word from the WHO/CDC....yet later was proven to be correct the the "official" authoritie
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Just call themselves "lie detectors" to avoid having to register? I think you need to come up with a very clear definition of who this law covers or anyone calling out bullshit on the internet will be caught up by it.
Right.. sure and guess what unless you belong to this media cartel group and enjoy a blue check mark granted to you by the gatekeepers it won't matter if the truth is on your side or not; you will get no visibility, that is what makes it a cartel.
Blue ticks don't improve visibility. Twitter doesn't randomly fill your feel with posts, it shows people you follow and some stuff that they have liked. It suggests accounts to follow based on their follows and anyone you interact with e.g. by following a quote or link that appeared on your timeline.
Just because it takes time and effort to build your account up doesn't mean it's a cartel. How else would it work? A random feed of spam? Anyone who demands it gets forced subscribed to by a million unlucky victims?
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is true then why aren't there right wing fact checkers doing the same thing? Why don't people believe them when the fact check?
In fact there are plenty of right wing fact checkers out there, but for some reason few people take them seriously. A lot of them are in Facebook because Facebook is the most gullible social network.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Anti vax bullshit
It is foolish to call discussion of Chinese gain of function research in attempt to understand origin of COVID as "anti vax bullshit". I encourage you to do better than binary tribalist thinking. Wouldn't you at least agree that understanding how COVID jumped to humans is necessary to minimize chances of something like this happening again?
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, "Republican" is a stretch, as today it is really Trumpism, and the Republican party may be splitting up. But with Trumpism, the central focus is about lies. Trump is a habitual liar, and there is no dispute on that. This starts on day one with him claiming that his inauguration had the largest attendance in history, which is easily debunked. But the inauguration attendance is not at all important in any possible way yet Trump felt compelled to lie about it becuase of his obsession of popularity nu
Re:An actual attack on freedom of speech (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't claim Democrats never fib, but it really does seem that the real whoppers are coming from the GOP these days.
For example, a licensed medical doctor claiming women can't get pregnant from rape. Or claiming that the forest fires out west were caused by a secret Jewish space laser. Don't bother trying to wish those claims away, they were made on the record.
Re: (Score:3)
Those beliefs weren't from anonymous bloggers, they were from GOP members elected to office. And I don't mean chief dog catcher in Podunk, I mean the U.S. House of Representatives and various state houses as well. It's more than just a couple. The GOP has become the Very Silly Party.
If I wanted to Nutpick, I would have gone after the PizzaGate true believers and Q-crazies. Or perhaps the former president who believes that members of his own party were part of a conspiracy to steal the election for the Democ
Re: (Score:3)
In this way, they are weaponized by social media against conservatives
If conservatives stopped lying, fact checkers would be powerless against them. I wonder if this ever crossed the minds of conservatives.
For example, Wuhan Lab and gain of function research was declared a hoax by fact-checkers WAAAY before actual scientific consensus even had a chance to be established.
If actual scientific consensus had to be established then a positive claim about that was necessarily a hoax. You can't claim to have knowledge without justification [stanford.edu].
Re: (Score:3)
I'm happy to have followers on Twitter, but for security and safety reasons I keep accounts separate. There are people who have tried to dox me, or threatened to. There are those who systematically mod my posts "troll" and I'm sure if they had my Twitter account they would report every post for terrorism or bullying too.
That's the real censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing.
Shall we do the same with journalists?
Restaurant reviewers?
Television critics?
Bloggers?
You remind me of Heinlein's excellent aphorism: man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalising animal.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe we should do it with politicians. Post a million dollar bond and, if you get caught passing a law that is found unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, you forfeit the bond and have to post another one before you can resume any legislative activity. Bond from personal funds only, of course, not from campaign funds. Certainly not sponsored by anyone. If it sounds ridiculous and corrupt to you to require politicians to be millionaires who can shell out that kind of money, then you're on the right track.
A
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well not wait a moment. These 'fact checkers' are not just engaging in speech. They are purporting to have some special expertise in judging the truthiness of statements being made by others. We require registraiton etc for others claiming special expertise.
You can fact check whatever you want. Just like you can offer any medical advice you like, but if you can't claim to be an MD while doing unless you are one.
I didn't know Alex Jones and Televangelist Jim Bakker are medical doctors
Alex Jones accused of selling phony coronavirus cures [go.com]
Televangelist who sold fake COVID-19 cure asks viewers for cash to avoid bankruptcy [kansascity.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Another poster more or less pointed this out, but this is just about creating a ridiculous barrier to entry. If every state had such a law, then a fact checker would need to post 50+ million dollars in bonds. Just one million dollars would be too much all by itself. Those other professionals you mention, like doctors, etc. do not have nonsense requirements like this. This reminds me of the old auto laws pushed by the buggy whip manufacturers et al. requiring a person with a flag to walk in front of all auto
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's no cartel (Score:5, Insightful)
What you want is an audience. Here's the thing, you're entitled to free speech as per Amendment 1 of the US Constitution, but last I checked there's no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing your right to an audience. Quiet the opposite actually, one of the 5 freedoms guaranteed by Amendment #1 is freedom of association.
In other words, I don't have to listen to you, and neither do Facebook or Twitter.
Re: (Score:3)
These 'fact checkers' are not just engaging in speech. They are purporting to have some special expertise in judging the truthiness of statements being made by others. We require registraiton etc for others claiming special expertise.
You seem to be claiming to have some special expertise in determining what is or isn't special expertise. Have you registered your special expertise yet?
Hello! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've been referred here because you're wrong about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [techdirt.com]
Re: (Score:2)
..."fact checking" and correcting peoples speech ...
Besides the fact (wait - I meant "observation") that you didn't use the necessary single apostrophe in the word "peoples" above, you've described half of /. I guess /. and all its participants will need to register.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The bill is unlikely to pass, and if it does pass it will be held up in the courts and eventually found to be unconstitutional. The whole point of making worthless bills that will never see the light of day is to encourage the voting base. And if Republican it often means appealing to the Trumpists and keeping them highly angry and convinced that there's a conspiracy agains them. They could however campaign based on the truth, this would be an honorable thing but not really a winning strategy in a system
Re: (Score:3)
Should be renamed (Score:3)
Should be renamed "truth tax act".
scared of facts (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't used to be that way. I'm old enough to remember when the GOP was (largely) the party of facts. Now they spout lie after lie and run away from facts to their safe spaces like frightened little cowards.
It's pathetic the way their followers are so comfortable with being constantly lied to.
Re:scared of facts (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pathetic the way their followers are so comfortable with being constantly lied to.
It's a failure of our democracies. People are so fed up and disillusioned with our leaders and our systems that they no longer care about truth or integrity. Part of it is fuelled by populism and foreign agitators, but a lot of the blame lies with the politicians who got us here and the press that was supposed to both help people engage with politics and prevent it getting this bad.
It was also partly the systems we had in place. They just were not ready for people like Trump and Johnson, and entire governments lying habitually. We have seen it in the UK recently, many times government ministers would have been obliged to resign in years gone by, but now simply carry on as if nothing happened because there is no actual rule forcing them to go. It was all based on honour and convention. Similarly the media still doesn't really know how to deal with a government that acts that way, or that lies all the time. Lately our government has simply boycotted difficult interviews where they used to be held to account.
Re: (Score:3)
It didn't used to be that way. I'm old enough to remember when the GOP was (largely) the party of facts. Now they spout lie after lie and run away from facts to their safe spaces like frightened little cowards. It's pathetic the way their followers are so comfortable with being constantly lied to.
Well... let's not go too far out on a limb here about the GOP caring for facts. I'm old enough to remember them before Nixon and they still played fast and loose with facts like any politicians. I will say, however, that since the Great Whore (Ronnie Ray-gun) sold out the party in the name of political power, they've grown more and more allergic to facts, and had an accompanying rise in hubris.
Although to be honest, and completely fair, the problem was they invited preachers and Dixiecrats into the part
Re: (Score:3)
IMO, the real issue is that BOTH of the major political parties are doing anything it takes to win, including twisting the truth where and when it suits them.
I consider myself fiscally conservative, but definitely not a Republican. In the past, I tended to do what a lot of people do though; voting for one of them as a subjective "lesser of two evils". If nothing else, it was traditionally a fair bet that anyone with the (R) after their name would try to do things that benefited business and job creation -
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Requiring substantiating evidence from multiple reputable sources.
Fixed it for you. The problem with my fix is that, for many, reputable source means: one that agrees with my prejudices; one that all my clueless friends quote; one that pops up first in my social media feeds. Mandatory attendance at 'Critical thinking' classes would be a good start, but will never happen as it would expose too many lies by politicians :-(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When Trump says there is a caravan of terrorist streaming towards the border there is plainly an objective reality that shows he is wrong. Example after example exists.
Re: (Score:3)
Not having an easy to find mountain of evidence against it is a good start....
This is attack on free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
The right approach to stopping biased fact-checking abuse by social media is to stop social media from wanton political censorship by modifying section 230.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is misleading because it lacks nuance :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A much better approach is to modify libel laws - currently it takes both malicious intent and disregard of facts. I think suing self-declared fact-checker should not require proof of malicious intent.
No, the right approach... (Score:2)
It is typically the job of the "media" to hold the powerful to account for their untruthful and/or misleading statements. Nowadays, "media" includes "social" media as well as newspapers, television and radio, so it's entirely reasonable for fact-checkers to post there, especially as traditional media seems to be doing such a poor job of "fact checking." at the moment.
Of course, this pre-supposes that
Cancel culture crybabies (Score:5, Funny)
Looks like the people complaining the most about "cancel culture" have certainly cancelled Liz Cheney. https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The number of times the left has 'cancelled' anyone is far outnumbered by how often the right CLAIMS the left cancelled someone.
The left didn't 'cancel' Doctor Seuss, some poorly selling books that were kinda racist were removed from sale by the foundation itself with no input from any political tribe, and the right whined endlessly about cancel culture, a think they have basically invented.
Cancel culture only exists on the right, particularly in the very active imaginations of the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah they should make a law about that, except doing so is not very conservative. Quite a conundrum.
Re:Cancel culture is here to stay (Score:5, Funny)
Keep trying to gasslight on cancel culture, right when big tech is drumming out conservatives, when Hollywood circling the woke drain, media is busy rewriting American history, and when Democratic politicians keep writing racist bills.
Literally none of this is happening.
Did you register with the state of Michigan before checking the facts on that?
Re: (Score:3)
But slavery is central to understanding history. And the founding of the country was very much built around the existence of slavery. The north and south were divided, and would not have formed a union without the "great compromise", it would have been two countries instead, or 13. Normally the great compromise is taught as how the north and the south finally agreed upon dual legislatures, sometimes not even brining up north and south but just about how the divided delegates were not in agreement (easier
Stupid. (Score:2)
Just stupid.
GOP war on democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GOP war on democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The current set of people calling themselves "conservative" in the USA are not. Fascist populist authoritarianism is not conservative. If you object to the term "Fascism" go look up the list of characteristics of fascism and evaluate the current movement and its leadership according to them. It's not a 100% match, only about 90-95%, give or take. Spade is a spade. Duck quacks. Fascists are fascist.
2. The leaders (political, cultural, and financial) of the above mentioned movement are not trying to prevent facts from reaching the general public. They are trying, with considerable success, to prevent facts from reaching their power base, at least in undistorted form.
3. Traditional media - a loose term indeed - is, on average, fairly close to center, as measured by unbiased means. Individual outlets have their biases, but they all hew pretty close to verifiable fact, even when they are selective in the facts they present. They only look like they are leaning away from you when your own point of view is leaning heavily - in any direction. Just ask any far lefties about how traditional media leans, you'll find your opinion mirrored.
4. Social Media is an even looser term, and contains great quantities of subsets leaning in any direction you care to imagine, and is the primary breeding ground for extremism on the right, left, up, down, spinwise, antispinwise, or any other direction.
5. Hollywood reflects the society which purchases their products. Ponder on that a while. Actors, directors, and other creatives do tend more often to lean to the liberal, but that has been the case throughout history, as conservatism is by definition the antithetical balancing force to creativity. However, Hollywood survives by selling products, and must appeal to their market.
6. Voting fraud in the USA at present is a tiny set of statistical noise with as yet no evidence to indicate it has in the last several decades changed an election result outside of tiny local elections, and even those cases are rare indeed. Many other countries have laws and regulations that encourage or require voting, and make it easy to do so, again with limited evidence of fraudulent results. Conversely, it is common as can be for election fraud to be perpetrated by entrenched political powers who restrict voting and make it difficult to do, or make the process opaque and easily manipulated or faked. One could readily surmise that elections need more protection from politicians than they do from voters. Election integrity is most threatened by politicians who want to control the results, whether by voter suppression, packing and cracking, propaganda campaigns, or outright violence.
Propose an amendment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, if it's proven that the politician *knew* they were lying, fire them and ban them from ever holding public office again.
Maybe even add a due-diligence requirement too - no dodging responsibility for your abuse of public trust through willful ignorance.
Of course the problem with any of these plans is that it requires politicians to pass it...
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be a lot harder to filter the "I was just asking questions" defense.
"Your honor, I never claimed that Joe Biden actually eats babies. I'm just asking the question, does he eat them? And if he doesn't, why hasn't he publicly denounced baby eating? I just want to know the truth!"
Re: (Score:2)
True, but there's no reason to avoid incremental improvements just because they don't achieve perfection.
Re: (Score:2)
Holy shucking fit (Score:2)
Holy shucking fit! What do they put in the corn up there?
The GOP wants to take control (Score:2)
The Democrats, for their part, are dumb as a blade of grass (as Willie Nelson once said, "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat"). They want to take down S230 because they think it'll let them go after the anti-vaxxers, Big Liars and Whit
Re: (Score:2)
as Willie Nelson once said...
The original quote was attributable to Will Rogers.
Hairdressers are licensed...why not fact checkers (Score:2)
People get all wound up around a "fact." What is a fact, really, and how do you decide if it's true or false?
The CDC says that the COVID rate for youths is "under 10%." In reality, it's under 1%. The CDC's statement is true and false at the same time. How do you deal with that as a fact checker?
Re: (Score:2)
Like anything the source matters. Is what the CDC claims backed by research and studies?
Re: (Score:2)
People get all wound up around a "fact." What is a fact, really, and how do you decide if it's true or false?
The CDC says that the COVID rate for youths is "under 10%." In reality, it's under 1%. The CDC's statement is true and false at the same time. How do you deal with that as a fact checker?
Unless "under 1%" is ever greater than "under 10%" their statement is *always* true, just less accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean other than the fact that hair dressers are licensed as they deal with things that could directly affect your health and wellness? Wrong chemicals in your hair/skin? Not a problem that needs licensing/regulation. Close proximity of your person to sharp instruments? Not a problem that needs licensing/regulation. People writing stuff on the Interwebs that you can ignore if you want . . . problem that needs licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, you can sue anybody for anything, but unless you have a valid case, it will cost you plenty, especially if you are judged to be abusing the legal system.
In this case, if they don't like what you say, they will destroy you financially using the full power of government with essentially unlimited legal resources.
Where have the conservatives gone? (Score:2)
Since when have conservatives ever argued that social problems can be solved with more government, and more government regulation?
Oh... right. These are Republicans, sorry, my mistake. They're only play the conservative during election years.
Is it any wonder, with the majority of Americans being conservative, that with every passing year more Americans feel they have no voice in government? Does anyone in government understand that freedom of speech is not a problem, and even if it was, would not be
Confusing cause and Effect (Score:2)
I guess if you want to legislate "free speech" you may want to start to register, license and manage people posting "facts" that need to be checked. And of course fine them if they're "lying"
You'd probably make a whole lot more money that way.
register the politicians (Score:2)
Consider all sides of this (Score:5, Interesting)
But.... if this went through, suddenly, fact checking would be a real profession. At the moment, anyone can claim to be a "fact checker" and verify every single thing that Trump has ever said. If the title "fact checker" suddenly required a million dollar bond, and they were liable for what they said, they would be a LOT more credible. Suddenly, there wouldn't be a single "fact-checker" catering to Fox and OAN idiots, "verifying" that Trump actually won, that Lysol is a good covid cure, and that Pizzagate was real.
This might actually be a good idea. Mainstream news has largely abandoned reporting the news "as it is". Bonded, liable fact checkers could fill the gap and act as sources of facts that a large fraction of the population could come to trust. I'm not sure this is a freedom of speech issue. It amounts to converting "fact checker" from a meaningless title to a licensed profession. Licensing has it's problems, but it does allow enforcement of standards. How many people trust unlicensed doctors?
I dunno. I'm reaching for ideas here. We've got a problem because the internet spreads lies at the speed of sound while truth uses a cane. Maybe this could help. I suspect it would burn right wingers MUCH harder than anyone else. Most of their house of cards is currently soaked in gasoline...
Downmod in 3..2..1..
Re:Consider all sides of this (Score:4, Interesting)
"Alternative" Facts - (TM) GOP (Score:2)
What he really means is a fine for those who don't skew their facts to support the GestapO Party.
Clearly Unconstitutional (Score:2)
Truth Teller vs Fact Checker (Score:2)
All this will do is cause people to change what they call themselves.
Like other's have posted, if this were passed, they should also force politicians who are "fact checked" to also carry a $1M bond and pay some monetary penalty themselves if found to be lying. Opinions are one thing, but for elected officials to state them as fact (and be wrong about it) should feel more pain than just the risk of not being elected the next time.
If this had been in place under Trump, that would have potentially erased the
Something is fundamentally broken... (Score:2)
Enforcement.. (Score:2)
While this seems to be a law aimed at Twitter and other Social Media platforms, it seems like it will be difficult to enforce. It reads like it's a civil matter, but when you agree to Terms of Service, you likely agree to what state laws arbitration will be handled under, and it's unlikely to be Michigan state law, unless the platform is based in Michigan.
Moreover, I read this quote in the article from the lawmaker himself:
---
"Social media companies deplatform people, politicians, and businesses on the bas
Hey Maddock --- you first (Score:2)
The bill requires POLITICIANS to file proof of a $1 million fidelity bond with the Secretary of State's office, which will be tasked with developing the "form and manner of registration and filing." An "affected person" could bring a civil action in any county district court to claim the bond for "any wrongful conduct that is a violation of the laws of this state." The bond could be forfeited at the discretion of the judge for "demonstrable harm" stemming from something a fact checker wrote, Maddock wrote.
The path to out-sourcing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect Name for the Agency (Score:2)
I have a perfect name for the agency that will regulate these fact checkers! Lets call it....
The Ministry of Truth!
Free speech wouldn't be free (Score:2)
If you had to pay for insurance to call out a politician as a liar, then free speech isn't free.
So anything that is posted is a lie, unless (Score:2)
it's checked by a bonded fact checker?
So all of Trumps statements of a stolen election are lies because he doesn't have the endorsement of a fact checker. In order for social media to accept political comments they first need to be approved by a certified fact checker otherwise they should be labelled "This is not a factual statement but for entertainment purposes only."
This law may be the best solution for keeping politicians honest. In order for a newspaper to publish a story it needs to be endorsed by so
Re:Spin it as a way to root out hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Reagan and the republicans of the 1980s are leftists compared to the modern day party.
Re:Spin it as a way to root out hate speech (Score:5, Insightful)
What freedom? I would call the Republican leadership telling their supporters the lie that there was widespread voting fraud and Biden was not legitimately elected: oppression. I think Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney understand freedom, and these Trumplicans here have literally zero interest in freedom - they just want power at any cost.
If you can't tell the truth to your constituents about some issue then you are no longer working for them on that issue. If you can't tell the truth about an election then you are not working for your constituents on democracy. What is America when its leadership is anti-democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you just raise your middle finger and remind them they don't regulate your speech.
Done.
Re: (Score:2)
When I hear conservatives complain about the MLB taking a stand against Georgia's oppression of minority voters, I imagine they must also think that a rape is just a disagreement between a woman and the man assaulting her!