#ukpol I wonder* if this will apply to, say, political action groups that scam entire populations with lies on billboards and buses [cough] brexit [cough].
*doubt
https://inews.co.uk/news/business/new-uk-fraud-strategy-aims-to-shut-down-scammers-at-source-2312894
“I wonder* if this will apply to, say, political action groups that scam entire populations with lies on billboards and buses [cough] brexit [cough].” (re new-uk-fraud-strategy-aims-to-shut-down-scammers-at-source)
I hope not. Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of liberal democracy. The way to counter lies in political fora is with more speech – expose the lies – not censorship.
@Pat I don’t see why this should not then apply to both civil and civic spaces.
We do not have FoS in the UK as you might understand it (assuming USA per your profile).
Hell, we didn’t even get rid of “blasphemy” laws in Scotland until 2021, and they still apply in Northern Ireland.
“Liberal democracy” is doing a lot of work when applied to the UK with FPTP, an unelected legislature body containing theocrats qua theocrats and an unelected head of state who just happens to have popped out of the right vagina at the right time.
The US and the UK share our core fundamental values when it comes to democracy
In principle, I agree. In practice, I don’t see it happening so much. Even so, I don’t have any say over the USA’s various legal systems, so they don’t concern me anywhere near as much.
In the case of scammers, that’s just contract law and criminal law
Which already exists. I have no issue with punitive action for such.
In the civics space it’s not a contract
Notionally, I would posit that it is: the so-called “social contract”. And this applies especially to the UK where, where large parts of our political system rely heavily on “gentlemanly” conduct where political behaviour is not subject to codification, something that certain elements of our political classes have, in recent years, stretched (and, I would argue, broken-sometimes egregiously and with malice).
We don’t need “a select few” to determine truth, and that is not what I’m arguing for anyway. What I’m positing is that bad actors are held to account for falsehoods in both commercial and political spheres. I would argue that in some—if not most—cases, the latter would be more of more import to more of society.
Each person needs to decide for themselves what they believe.
And this could (and perhaps should) be the case for both commercial and political claims. Education would help instruct both. Legislative curbing would also curtail both. Lying and misrepresentation, whether for commercial or political gain, should carry consequences, and not be limited solely to one activity when they both impact on people’s lives.
<’…large parts of our political system rely heavily on “gentlemanly” conduct…’
I agree that cultural norms are just as important as formal political structures for a functioning society.
“…bad actors are held to account for falsehoods in both commercial and political spheres…”
People need to be held accountable for what they say. In public debate that should happen immediately via responses and counter arguments. If someone consistently lies, then they pay for that with a loss of credibility.
If someone’s speech causes direct harm, like saying, “There’s no poison in this Koolaid”, then they should be held legally responsible for that.
Or if a public official lies about something of public concern, such as whether a cloth mask or an N95 mask is more effective, and people suffer and die because of that, then that public official should be held accountable.
“Education would help instruct both.”
Free speech facilitates acquisition of knowledge.
@Pat I’m not arguing against free speech (however that might be defined)—our government does that for us (e.g. yesterdays Public Order Act). I’m arguing for accountability.
And in the specific case I mention (i.e. brexit) direct harms (personally felt) have already been caused, and were caused before the termination of our membership of the EU by bad actors (both fringe and establishment) in the political classes.
Loss of face and mild opprobrium is not sufficient for either poisoned soft drinks or deep societal harm. Debate only goes so far to limit harms, otherwise the court system would need to be no more than a town hall.
“Loss of face and mild opprobrium is not sufficient for either poisoned soft drinks or deep societal harm.”
I’m not sure what kind of accountability you want. The original post said “shut down scammers”, which to me sounds like preventing those people from speaking again or worse.
I think if there’s a stiff penalty for telling a lie when discussing public policy in a public forum it will have a chilling effect on the free expression of ideas. People may be afraid to share their ideas for fear that at some point in the future they may be interpreted as a lie and possibly have consequences assessed against them, so they will not express those ideas. If that happens, then there will be less sharing of information and we would be less likely to find the truth.
@nullifidian
The US and the UK share our core fundamental values when it comes to democracy, even though the specific implementation may differ.
In the case of scammers, that’s just contract law and criminal law. If someone offers to sell something and someone sends them money for the thing and they don’t ship the item, then they breached the contract, and if they did that with intent then that’s a criminal violation.
In the civics space it’s not a contract, you’re expressing an opinion about an issue or candidate. The more information that is allowed to flow, the more likely that the truth will prevail in that debate. So restricting speech often results in a less informed electorate.
Also, having a select few who decide what is true and what is not in public debate about issues, is fundamentally unjust. Each person needs to decide for themselves what they believe.