Germany; "Those who makes false propaganda news should be sentenced"

[Ash74]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Do you not see a problem with the state dictating what is "fake" or not?

That is my fear. 

Who watches the watchers?

What about international boundaries?

What if Russia or China decides what the Toronto Star is saying should be considered fake news? 

Will we imprison the entire staff at The Onion or the Weekly World News?

Who will decide who should be prosecuted? 

Why would we not prosecute any opposition to the government when the government could misrepresent their case and therefore spin it as fake news. 

We need free speech more than we need more regulations on free speech. 

[-TSS-]

If only people defined what is fake news then this issue would be easier to discuss.

One usually understands that fake news=false information. However more often than not the so called fake news has revealed the lies of the so-called trustworthy media.

[OftenWrong]

It's good to see that there will soon be laws against spreading of lies. As you see by the story below, fake news can be dangerous.

Duped by fake news story, Pakistani minister threatens nuclear war with Israel

Disinformation has been used for a long time. Now we get to define what their "lies" truly are!

[Ash74]

28 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

It's good to see that there will soon be laws against spreading of lies. As you see by the story below, fake news can be dangerous.

Duped by fake news story, Pakistani minister threatens nuclear war with Israel

Disinformation has been used for a long time. Now we get to define what their "lies" truly are!

But who gets to decide what is "fake news"?

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Bryan said:

Do you not see a problem with the state dictating what is "fake" or not?

Yes, I see it.

[Guest]

The state makes decisions like that all the time though. It decides what is slander, libel, harassment, incitement, etc.  It can figure out malice aforethought and negligence when it comes to fake news too. 

[eyeball]

We simply need to dedicate a portion of our education curriculum to Critical Thinking.

We can introduce this starting in elementary grades and by grade 7-8 make it clearly obvious what the intent is by calling it Critical Thinking 101.

You should probably need a PHD to teach it.

Edited December 27, 2016 by eyeball

[Bonam]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

We simply need to dedicate a portion of our education curriculum to Critical Thinking.

You can try to teach someone something, but you can't learn it for them. When I was going through school I distinctly remember critical thinking being emphasized, but just like anything else, many people didn't get it. 

[-TSS-]

Funny thread-title; if you consider something being propaganda then you assume it is false information. So what exactly is false propaganda?

[Bryan]

20 hours ago, bcsapper said:

The state makes decisions like that all the time though. It decides what is slander, libel, harassment, incitement, etc.  It can figure out malice aforethought and negligence when it comes to fake news too. 

It's not libel if it's true though. That's why you can't have such a thing as "officially authorized" truth.

[?Impact]

On 12/26/2016 at 8:14 PM, Ash74 said:

Will we imprison the entire staff at The Onion or the Weekly World News?

Is satire considered fake news? How does one know what is satire?

Here is what the Onion says on it's about page:

The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1765, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, Bryan said:

It's not libel if it's true though. That's why you can't have such a thing as "officially authorized" truth.

What about scholarly authorized facts?

[Bryan]

11 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about scholarly authorized facts?

You still have to accept who is making that judgement. People in positions of authority authorize what benefits them.

[Michael Hardner]

13 hours ago, Bryan said:

It's not libel if it's true though. That's why you can't have such a thing as "officially authorized" truth.

No, that's not why you can't have 'official truth'... because it's "true".  We can't have official truth because of the thinking behind your statement.  Nobody can say what is true.

That said, there are worse things than banning lies... such as a culture that is so corrupt it can't discern lies from truth on its own.

[Altai]

Instead of creating a "Ministry of Truth", they can create some well funded websites to clarify events-claims. This was my idea but I see that some people also thought about it before me and they create some sites called "fact-check sites". Germany should do the same thing. 

I also have a fact-check topic in this forum too;

Here >>> 
 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Altai

[OftenWrong]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Nobody can say what is true.

"This statement is untrue".

[Altai]

Germany officials says that they wont allow these kind of actions because words comes first and actions follows it. As I said before in another topic which was about burning flags or something similar, agressive words are the indicators of agressive actions. People who pukes agressive words will probably show some violent acts if they find an opportunity for it. 


Source: 

 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Altai