New Turkey Law Mandates Jail Time for Spreading 'Disinformation' (bloomberg.com) 100
Turkey criminalized the spread of what authorities describe as false information on digital platforms, giving the government new powers in the months remaining before elections. From a report: The measure, proposed by the governing AK Party and its nationalist ally MHP, is part of a broader "disinformation" law that was adopted by parliament on Thursday. It mandates a jail term of one to three years for users who share online content that contains "false information on the country's security, public order and overall welfare in an attempt to incite panic or fear." Media groups and opposition parties have decried the bill as censorship, seeing it as a move to stifle critics and journalists in the run-up to elections set for next year. "The crime is defined with rather vague and open-ended terms," said Mustafa Kuleli, vice president of the European Federation of Journalists. "It is not clear how prosecutors will take action against those who allegedly spread false information." Other articles in the law range from amendments to issuance of press cards to the procedure of correcting "false" information online.
who defines (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
also known as "qui custodes custodies?"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
People called "Romanes", they go to the house?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It says "Romans Go Home!". No it doesn't. "conjugate the verb!'
Re: (Score:2)
I translate Latin professionally ...
That is awesome. Much respect.
Caesar nihil skit!
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, and my high school Latin teacher would smack me for that error. "quis" it is.
Re:who defines (Score:5, Insightful)
Once you've built the big machinery of political power, remember you won't always be the one to run it.
P. J. O'Rourke
You don't have a choice (Score:2)
The only option is to participate. You pick up your rifle and learn to use it. Or you cower in fear from bad men willing to do just that. You're call.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:who defines (Score:5, Insightful)
Knowing the way the current Turkish leader does things, "misinformation" will likely mean (among other things) anything that gives the current government a reason to arrest opposition politicians and keep them from winning seats.
Or anything that makes the Kurds seem like anything other than evil terrorists that make ISIS look like saints by comparison.
Re: who defines (Score:1)
Not tha
Re: (Score:1)
FACTS are FACTS. Period.
Opinions and beliefs are just that - BELIEFS. Once proven as immutable fact with blatant evidence, it becomes FACT.
And any "alternative" fact is still NOT a fact; rather a belief or opinion.
Misinformation is claiming something unproven, and reasonably doubtful, as a fact.
This is an opinion, not reliable FACTual info.
e.g. Extensive investigations have found no evidence that the 2020 US Presidential election was rigged or ta
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
In the U.S., you get fined a billion dollars for widespread, malicious lying. Hopefully that will cool some of this down a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
That only applies for misinformation AGAINST the government. If you misinform FOR the government then you receive billions of dollars.
Calling Sandy Hook a government hoax costs billions.
Not calling WMDs in Iraq a hoax nets billions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
You know...while I think Alex Jones is pretty much a whack job, and I disagree with most of what he says most of the time, I think people should shudder that something like this has happened, and hope this is overturned.
As far as I know, while he said some truly vile things about Sandyhook....he never directed any of his listeners/viewers to harass anyone or harm anyone.
Saying th
Re: (Score:3)
You should have the right to say what you wish under the 1st amendment, even if it offends someone badly.
The 1st Amendment doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without the possibility of any legal ramifications.
There are quite a few restrictions to the 1st Amendment [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is speech isn't really actually restricted. It is USED as part of another crime.
I can say "I want you dead" but if I say that to my hired gunman it is a crime... not the speech; that is merely the method of committing the crime.
Now if I say you can't repeat some phrase or curse word and punish (or cancel) you for the speech that is infringing upon your human right; it's not removing your right to say it because you have inherent natural rights... it's infringing upon your right. Draw a cartoon of Moha
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
He called the parents "crisis actors". i.e. people paid to shed tears for the dead kids, not the real parents of the dead kids. That's a pretty good definition of libel [legaldictionary.net].
This wasn't the court system, it was the parents and relatives of those who died who brought the case. Jones tried
Re: Geez... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is telling that when American right wingers hear about a right-wing government regulating speech, they don't associate it with State bans on informing women about abortion access, or parents about gender issues, or library book bans, or TFG's attempt to ban books that made him look bad. Instead, they claim that generations-old tort laws signal the end of the Republic.
They see their censorship as the natural order, and all deviation as immoral license--much like the regimes in Turkey and Hungary. Meanwhile they try to base public policy on ivermectin's superpowers and litter boxes in elementary schools.
At minimum we should paint and laugh for as long as it is legal.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your religious, moral and ethical beliefs, it may be considered wrong, or even a sin to lie, but in the US, at least, there are many times that it's not against the law.
Re: (Score:1)
Depending on your religious, moral and ethical beliefs, it may be considered wrong, or even a sin to lie, but in the US, at least, there are many times that it's not against the law.
Yes... Even by the government.. In fact, most of the time it's perfectly legal to lie. It'd be more accurate to say "lying is legal, except in narrowly defined circumstances"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
"Offend" comes nowhere close to what he did to those kid's parents. Shitbag should be lit on fire and die in a greasy conflagration.
I think you are being much too kind.
Re: (Score:1)
You should have the right to say what you wish under the 1st amendment, even if it offends someone badly.
uh...in the US you do, don't you?
However, whatever you say may have repercussions.
When I was young, you mouth off to some kid on the playground and you might get punched in the nose. A loud-mouthed youngster learned quickly they could say what they wanted, but they might get decked.
-OR- there are a few words that you have the right to say on a passenger plane but will get you a "Go directly to jail, Do not pass go" card from Community Chest.
I'm sure you can come up with some more examples on your
Re: (Score:1)
You should have the right to say what you wish under the 1st amendment, even if it offends someone badly.
uh...in the US you do, don't you?
No.. There are reasonable restrictions. Lying under oath is illegal. Inciting immediate violence, slander, libel, revealing classified information.. There are plenty of things you cannot say without severe legal repercussions. But the SCOTUS has always tried to find a good balance. A restriction placed on speech generally has to have a substantial need for the public good. Feelings don't count.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
. But the SCOTUS has always tried to find a good balance. A restriction placed on speech generally has to have a substantial need for the public good. Feelings don't count.
And now, some don't even bother with law. Want something censored as a government? Pesky laws get in your way of shutting your opponents up? Easy fix! Just get in touch with your techbros at Facebook, Twitter and Google, et al, and make it so. They'll shut the troublemakers down for you, fast!
That's what's happening now. One inch closer to fascism. Or is it one mile? It's getting pretty weird these days.
Re: (Score:1)
There are plenty of things you cannot say without severe legal repercussions.
Huh, maybe that's why I said "However, whatever you say may have repercussions."
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be nice though if people on the internet had to think for even a second before saying anything for a buck.
And I believe the system handled this well enough that we don't need extra laws for it. So my comment about "cooling" things down applies to both of those dimensions.
BTW: It looks like the trolls are at it again with the moderation on your comment. I see no valid reason why it should be modded down, let alone labeled troll or flamebait. I wish there was some way to defend the modera
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure, it is the other way around: Erdogan has found inspiration in the American government treatment's of people, who say things, that Democrats don't want said.
Hunter Biden's laptop story was just one example — suppressed on the FBI's directive [bbc.com].
Although the First Amendment bans governments from banning speech directly, the "Welfare Clause" as well as the amorphous "regulation powers" let them th
Crafting the specifics. (Score:2)
That's a great idea. Now I'm sure that the government in power will refine everything such that they themselves can't simply use it as a blunt instrument to stomp out dissention.
Re: (Score:2)
Why invent something only to then disable it?
Re: (Score:2)
Türkiye (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, WTF? The heading support unicode but the post doesn't?
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, eh...
It's not even unicode, since ü is in the extended ascii character set. (Alt-129)
Türkiye
Is an opposing party's platform disinformation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is an opposing party's platform disinformation? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, we have loonies right trying to use the term "disinformation" as a pathway to prohibiting free speech worldwide.
Just like China wants
Welcome to our dystopian future.
Recip is so screwed. (Score:2)
Because no religious text is true.
nice to see unanimity among friends (Score:2)
At least they and Paypal* are finally in synch now!
*(and FB, and youtube, and twitter, and the White House...)
Re: (Score:1)
At least they and Paypal* are finally in synch now!
*(and FB, and youtube, and twitter, and the White House...)
Several other governments are headed that way too, and of course, loads of businesses, especially the social networks. And the governments aren't necessarily the usual suspects... the North Koreas, the Irans, etc. Many of them are "free" nations in the EU looking at this stuff. Canada as well.
In terms of corporate punishment for "misinformation", we've already seen YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, etc do this. And I don't want to hear "Private companies yadda yadda". The same people defending Twitter et. al. all
California next? (Score:1, Interesting)
They've already criminalized "medical misinformation" by health workers, defined in the law as merely any deviation from prevailing consensus among practitioners. Why not extend it to everyone?
How about criminalizing climate and energy misinformation, defined as anything that pokes holes in the idea that electric cars, powered by solar panels and wind turbines alone, are a viable replacement for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles?
How about criminalizing racist misinformation, defined as deviations from th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
His grand kids were playing with the tv remote and he couldn't figure out how to change the channel back to Fox this morning.
Re: (Score:1)
They've already criminalized "medical misinformation" by health workers, defined in the law as merely any deviation from prevailing consensus among practitioners.
I think you may actually be describing fraud there. You'd have to be a bit more specific (and possibly a bit more honest in your description of the definition) to say for sure.
How about criminalizing climate and energy misinformation, defined as anything that pokes holes in the idea that electric cars, powered by solar panels and wind turbines alone, are a viable replacement for gasoline and diesel powered vehicles?
Where it's fraud, it's kind of already illegal. For example, providing misinformation to regulators about things such as the emissions your vehicles produce if you're a car company is fraud. Car companies have done that. Providing misinformation about how much methane you're releasing directly into the atmosphere to government regulat
Re: (Score:2)
California is on the same road (Score:4, Insightful)
https://nypost.com/2022/10/10/... [nypost.com]
Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed California Assembly Bill 2098, making it the first state to attempt to censor what physicians can say about COVID-19 to their patients.
The statute instructs that “It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.”
California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct.
Re:California is on the same road (Score:4, Insightful)
A law saying doctors must give accurate and factual medical information?
clutches pearls
Re: California is on the same road (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
A law saying doctors must give accurate and factual medical information? clutches pearls
Except, you mouth-breathing 'tard, our information on COVID was constantly evolving. What we all assumed to be true on one day was quite often changed the next.
Re: (Score:1)
And let's not forget, even such universally recognized authorities on the subject like attention whore Fauci have publicly admitted to lying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between opinions and things claimed as facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:California is on the same road (Score:5, Insightful)
A doctor has a license. If a doctor is unable to refrain from spouting medical nonsense, their license gets revoked.
Seems pretty clear cut to me. Your suggestion this has anything at all to do with censorship is utterly delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
A doctor has a license. If a doctor is unable to refrain from spouting medical nonsense, their license gets revoked. Seems pretty clear cut to me. Your suggestion this has anything at all to do with censorship is utterly delusional.
I think it's more nuanced than what you describe. Originally doctors were unlicensed, and anyone could call themselves doctors, and many quacks did. There was lots of quackery. The government started to regulate them. The doctors formed their own self-regulating professional body and made a deal with the authorities: "you trust us to keep our house in order, and we will, and you don't need to do further regulation or micro-managing". That model had been universally adopted.
When a profession fails to uphold
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. None of the specifically mentioned things in that article are in any way, shape, or form "Opinions".
If your "Opinion" is that vaccines don't work, you need to not be a doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. None of the specifically mentioned things in that article are in any way, shape, or form "Opinions".
If your "Opinion" is that vaccines don't work, you need to not be a doctor.
You're incorrect.
At first, it was '2 weeks to stop the spread', and 2 years later, we're still suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the actual text of the bill [ca.gov]. The only part I have an issue with is 2270.4: "“Misinformation” means false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care."
That could directly contradict with the Hippocratic Oath [wikipedia.org] and also pegs the physician against a moving target when it comes to things like COVID-19, especially during the early stages. We all know how many times CDC and WHO (wouldn't that be considered "the concensus"?) flip flopped
Re: (Score:2)
"Contrary to the standard of care" is a phrase that is used in malpractice lawsuits. It is BAD behavior in the medical community.
As for "pegging a physician against a moving target" that is how it works -doctors are expected to keep up with current medical knowledge. It is just part of the job. Especially so when the information is in flux -they should know it is in flux, and read the updates being passed along by the AMA.
Researchers question, and develop new theories and treatments.
Attending physicians
Re: (Score:2)
Medicine is not exact science.
Science not being exact does not make someone unprofessional. Science showing something to be wrong beyond any reasonable doubt or claims of "inexactness", and yet you doing it anyway makes someone unprofessional.
Don't hide dangerous quacks beyond "it's not exact science".
Re: (Score:2)
COVID was pretty basic science and sad how poor our science education is. If you think they should have had consistent simple messaging and immediately know 100% correct answers from the start then you're part of the problem. Especially if you are in IT and have done troubleshooting, you should know better.
Incompetent Doctors need to be banned. Doctors already kill and maim way more people than cars kill every year - and those are not all incompetent doctors making those mistakes. Human error plays a big p
Re: (Score:1)
Or better yet maybe the doctor youre visiting didnt need all the extra years of training because they were pushed through by the administration in the name of "diversity" or some other meritless reason.
Good times
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't the same thing as stating an unpopular political opinion that is punishable by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a tricky one. Should a doctor be able to keep their license to practice medicine in a state if they tell their patients that disease is caused by dream sex with witches and demons? Or how about if they tell people that cancer is caused by subluxations of the spine and that Western medicine is useless against it and that the only fixes are chiropractic manipulation of the spine or acupuncture? Or, possibly, taking some of the cancer and repeatedly diluting it in a large amount of water and finally giv
NY Post is bias (Score:2)
Now onto the points in the article you linked. This is nothing new. Quack doctors lose their licenses all the time. All the bill does is clarify existing law that says if you tell a patient something that has zero scientific backing and you keep doing it knowingly then you're going to lose your license. Again, n
Re: (Score:2)
California law requires the Medical Board of California to take action — up to and including license revocation — against any licensed physician charged with unprofessional conduct.
Wait, are you surprised by this? Are you suggesting you live in a place where medical professionals do not have their license revoked when charged with unprofessional conduct? That's ... the law in every western country.
Re: (Score:2)
How do these laws pass? (Score:2)
How can the public be so dimwitted as to tolerate something so blatantly stupid? Imagine there is a website that keeps popping up a notice to subscribe to their Daily News, would anyone be fool enough to go back to such a site? That's the level of stupidity I am talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
How can the public be so dimwitted as to tolerate something so blatantly stupid?
We're talking about Turkey here. And while Turks are not Islamist to the extent that, say, the Saudis or Iranians are, Islam is a very important part of their identity. Kemal Ataturk failed in secularizing the Turks. They remain deeply religious. And Erdogan, despite some missteps, still has the support of most Turks, especially those outside of the more cosmopolitan centers like Istanbul. That makes it easy to protect the "honor" of Turkey.
Iâm confused (Score:1)
The remnants of the Ottoman Empire suppress speech (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm not shocked since that liberal moron in New Zealand is now wanting to put cows in chambers and tax them for farts. She's also pushed anti-free speech rhetoric, especially at the UN. [nypost.com]
Back to the Turks..
How soon they forget the widespread torturing of political prisoners [info-turk.be] and other extreme acts by the Turkish gov't.
Free Speech is a human right.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not shocked since that liberal moron ... also pushed anti-free speech rhetoric, especially at the UN. [nypost.com]
Well that's a rather simplistic take on what she said, completely ignoring the context. Her argument seemed rather more about amplification and spread of misinformation and propaganda, rather than saying people shouldn't be allowed to share their views. And the simple fact is, propaganda is a weapon of war, a tool used by governments, authoritarian or otherwise, to influence populations. To a degree it's fine when one does it to their own citizens,' after all if I elected them I'm giving them the power, and
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not shocked since that liberal moron in New Zealand is now wanting to put cows in chambers and tax them for farts. She's also pushed anti-free speech rhetoric, especially at the UN. [nypost.com]
Oh yeah, because saying that the way speech works online and is manipulated by algorithms and curation should be studied and understood is anti-free speech. Isn't that more or less the same thing that Republicans are doing when they call moderation "cancel culture"?
As for the methane emissions thing, do you actually think that she wants to put cows in chambers? Seriously, are you just being ridiculously hyperbolic, or do you actually believe that? I can never really tell with US right wing types. You might
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm not surprised that's the take you have on it when you read NY Post articles. When you're ready to drop off the rage bandwagon you can go read a reputable account of what was said and realise she wasn't pushing any anti-free speech, but rather commenting on the use of algorithms to promote misinformation, something which objectively is happening right now.
Come back to reality man. What you're doing isn't healthy.
Oblig Parks and Rec (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech... (Score:2)
HELL NO! (Score:1)
New Turkey Law? (Score:1)
And the truth in Turkiye is very fluid (Score:2)
Just in time (Score:2)
Just in time for Thanksgiving, too.