Thread: The corrosive power of fake news.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

That's all right. Don't worry your pretty little head about it, freckles.

You appear to have lost what remains of your marbles.

^^^

Can ‘fake news’ really be outlawed as Europeans intend?

Badly informed voters may be the nemesis of democracy, but crafting legislation that works in the digital age is fraught with challenges

How can societies combat the stream of false, often fabricated information that surges across the internet and through social media, polluting political debates almost everywhere?


That question has bedeviled defenders of democracy at least since the 2016 US presidential election. And at a New Year’s press conference outside the Élysée Palace this month, French President Emmanuel Macron offered his own answer.


Macron’s goal, it seems, is to curtail “fake news” by law. He is promising that, by the end of the year, he will introduce a bill to crack down on those spreading misinformation during any election period.

But France already has a repressive law banning the publication or broadcasting of disinformation in bad faith. Under Article 27 of the famous Press Law of 1881, disseminating false information “by whatever means” is punishable by a fine of up to €45,000 (US$55,000) in today’s currency.



The Press Law, however, applies only to information that has “disturbed the public peace,” which can be very difficult to define, let alone prove. Another law, part of the electoral code, provides for punishment of one year in prison and a fine of €15,000 for anyone who uses false information “or other fraudulent maneuvers” to steal votes. But this provision applies primarily to cases of electoral fraud.


Macron’s challenge, then, is to craft legislation for the digital age. Although he didn’t explicitly say so in his recent speech, he is clearly targeting the kind of Russian interference that played a prominent role in the 2016 US presidential election, and also threatened his own presidential campaign last spring.


But Macron is also looking beyond Russia. His larger goal is to protect democratic institutions against any regime advocating what he calls “political illiberalism,” such as the governments led by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, or Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) party.


The first track Macron is exploring concerns transparency. Digital platforms will likely be subjected to higher transparency standards for all “sponsored content,” not just to disclose the identity of advertisers, but also to limit the amounts spent on these messages. Second, Macron will try to establish summary proceedings in which judges can order that content be deleted, or that websites be delisted from search engines or blocked altogether.


France is not the first country to legislate against fake news. On the eve of the German federal election last September, Germany’s parliament passed a law known as “NetzDG,” which came into force on January 1. The law requires social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to remove all illegal content posted by users – which includes hate speech, in addition to disinformation – within 24 hours, or face a fine of up to €50 million. Italy’s government, ahead of a general election in March, has also proposed a bill to police fake news.

Not surprisingly, Macron’s proposed legislation has provoked criticism, not just from Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Front, but also from the extreme left. Macron’s critics have enlisted the help of legal experts who argue that the laws already on the books are sufficient to contain fake news.


Yet these experts have failed to grasp the extent to which new technologies, particularly social media, enable wrongdoing. Those seeking to spread misinformation and conspiracy theories now have more opportunities than ever to do so. If anything, the need for new measures ensuring transparent and accurate online content should be obvious.


Still, the new judicial procedure that Macron envisions will need to be examined carefully once it has been fleshed out. Should a judge have the power to decide on the spot what is true and what is false, and then issue fines? After all, “fake news” can take many forms, and sometimes it is disseminated without any malign intention to manipulate voters or sway an election.


A second complication is the controversial issue of net neutrality. Presumably, the law will have to police disinformation while also ensuring that internet service providers treat all online content equally.
Moreover, it remains to be seen how Macron will address social networks and online actors that are based abroad, and over whom French authorities have no jurisdiction.


No reasonable person suspects Macron of wanting to introduce censorship. But his proposed law will need to include safeguards. For now, it is promising to learn that the proposed law would pertain only to the period preceding elections – a delicate moment in the public life of a democracy.


In any case, Macron’s proposed legislation will be but one tool in the fight against disinformation. Public education to improve media literacy, and new classifications to treat social-media platforms as publishers with editorial accountability, can also undermine disinformation campaigns.


Ultimately, stanching the flow of fake news is a global challenge that will require a global solution. In this regard, the European Commission’s decision to convene a group of experts to lead a public consultation on the issue is to be welcomed. One hopes that the process results in a set of recommendations on the best way forward.


But, until then, Macron’s controversial proposals – which, to be sure, some 79% of French people favor, according to a recent poll – will at least prompt citizens to start thinking in stark terms about an issue that touches the very foundation of Western democracy. As we have seen in one country after another, a disinformed voter is a democrat’s nemesis.

Can 'fake news' really be outlawed as Europeans intend? | Asia Times

Originally Posted by misskit

Can ‘fake news’ really be outlawed as Europeans intend?

It can but shouldn't be. What government defines as fake often is not. Just another way for governments to censor and muffle the media. The country this forum is dedicated to is a perfect example of where someone can be jailed for telling the truth.

^ Spot on Norton, spot on.

Originally Posted by Norton

The country this forum is dedicated to is a perfect example of where someone can be jailed for telling the truth.

Often, not jailed inside the said country. And often, no longer need to jail, case closed...

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Often, not jailed inside the said country. And often, no longer need to jail, case closed...

Have you been taking language lessons from Jeff?

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Have you been taking language lessons from Jeff?

No, he's incoherent with short words. Jeff uses long ones and still makes no sense.

Jeff is incoherent even without words.

Here look, I quoted all the gaps inbetween the words from his last post:

" "

...still doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Norton

It can but shouldn't be. What government defines as fake often is not.

You just explained why t can't... it's Schroedinger's News... all news is both fake and not fake at the same time... as soon as you read it, if it was true it becomes fake; and if it was fake, it becomes true. Red pill/blue pill.
Let's not all acted shocked, like in the good old days it was always good old fashioned organic wholewheat news hand crafted by seasoned rustic salt-of-the-earth artisans doing it just for some sense of love and duty.
This EU shit is startlingly overt in attempt to lay foundations for a ministry of truth... want to expose sources to "transparency" and threats that silence them? Technocrats thrive in bureaucracies and epitomise "bad faith".

^ Its only 2PM. How can you be drunk this early? Some people really should stay away from alcohol.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Have you been taking language lessons from Jeff?

Unfortunately, not everybody is so ingenious like you to get the language without language lessons.

Maybe Fake News can't be outlawed but it can surely be sued! I just love it when this jackass gets called up on the garbage he spouts. Bawhahahaha!


Alex Jones hit with $1 million defamation lawsuit for false Parkland accusation

A 24-year-old man said he suffered harassment after the InfoWars host falsely named him as the Florida shooter

Alex Jones, who runs the far-right website Infowars, is facing another defamation lawsuit, this time for falsely depicting a 24-year-old man from Boston as the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooter who opened fire at the high school on February 14 and killed 17 people.

The lawsuit, which was filed on Monday, lists Jones, Infowars, Free Speech Systems and the author of the article, Kit Daniels, as defendants in the case. Marcel Fontaine, a 24-year-old Massachusetts resident, is the plaintiff.



“The day the shooting happened Infowars published an article alleging that the Florida shooter was a communist and depicted a photograph of our client,” Bill Ogden, a lawyer representing Fontaine told Salon. “It was shared on Google, Instagram, and had millions of shares, because of that our client started getting pushback, responses and was contacted with death threats; it has emotionally affected him,”



The original article, which has since been retracted, displayed a photo of Fontaine wearing a satirical “communist party” t-shirt —adorned with communist leaders like Stalin, Lenin and Mao drinking from red Solo cups. In the original iteration, preluding the image, Daniels wrote, ”and another alleged photo of the suspect shows communist garb.” As the lawsuit explains:

“It appears that Mr. Fontaine was targeted by InfoWars due to the t-shirt he was wearing in his photograph. That novelty t-shirt, sold by online retailer Threadless.com, makes a visual pun on the phrase “communist party” by depicting 11 communist historical figures in a state of merriment and intoxication, complete with German economist Karl Marx wearing a lampshade on his head.”


https://www.salon.com/2018/04/03/ale...nd-accusation/

^ The t-shirt design.

Jones truly is a scumbag.

He pushes this shit to his delusional followers for his own personal benefit and they're too dumb to see they're being manipulated.

OOOH. BAM! Another scumbag getting sued for spouting Fake News on Jones' Show.

Roger Stone Hit With $100 Million Defamation Suit in Miami From Chinese Billionaire

Roger Stone, South Florida's infamous political hit man, is not capable of keeping his mouth shut. He has spent decades on the attack, getting called in when, say, politicians want someone to stage a fake riot or smear the parents of a dead American soldier.


But Stone has now pissed off someone with deep pockets and a similar zest for combat: Guo Wengui, the mysterious, recently exiled Chinese billionaire known in America as "Miles Kwok," is suing Stone for defamation in Miami federal court after Stone criticized him on InfoWars earlier this year. Guo claims Stone slandered him when Stone accused Guo of funneling money to both Hillary Clinton and Steve Bannon; the billionaire now wants $100 million from the political consultant-turned-media figure.


"Stone has publicly stated that Plaintiff Guo has been 'found guilty' and 'convicted' of financial crimes in the United States — this is not true," reads the suit, filed March 15. "Stone has publicly accused Plaintiff Guo of violating U.S. election law by making political donations to Hillary Clinton and financing a presidential run by Steven Bannon — this is not true. Mr. Stone should be held to account for these and other falsehoods about Mr. Guo."


Stone responded by colorfully referring to the allegations as a crock of shit.


"This is essentially a political lawsuit and is a Kwok of Schiff," he messaged New Times. "None of my reporting rises to the level of defamation. Mr. Kwok tweeted himself about his support for Steve Bannon's projects, and now he's suing me for reporting on it?... While I doubt this meritless suit will ever get to trial, my attorneys are very anxious to question Mr. Kwok about his relationship with both Chinese and American intelligence agencies."


The suit represents yet another challenge to the growing influence of InfoWars and its conspiracy-mongering ilk. Earlier this year, an innocent man sued InfoWars, the Gateway Pundit, and former South Florida Congressman Allen West after they falsely accused him of staging the Unite the Right car attack on behalf of the so-called deep State. Separately, InfoWars is being sued for falsely blaming the Parkland massacre on a Massachusetts man and blasting a photo of his face out to InfoWars' millions of followers.


For what it's worth, Guo is a mysterious figure. He essentially showed up in America in 2015 after fleeing corruption charges in China. The Chinese media has accused Guo of a raft of crimes, including fraud, money laundering, bribery, and rape. But Guo claims the Chinese government is trying to nab him because he knows how corrupt that country's government really is and is spilling its secrets from the comfort of his Manhattan palace. Reporters have otherwise been unable to confirm most basic details about Guo, including his age, how he obtained most of his money, how many tens of millions he paid for his seven-bedroom Manhattan apartment, and even his actual name.



But since moving to the States, which does not have an extradition treaty with China, Guo has begun live-streaming online every day and accusing high-ranking Chinese officials of corruption while he dines on luxury yachts and does cardio in his luxury apartment overlooking Central Park. He's accused some officials of stashing money away overseas. He's said others are sleeping with famous actresses. And, in turn, he's been sued multiple times for defamation.

But Guo didn't leave his odd political connections in China. Since moving to the U.S., he's posed for photos at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago (he's reportedly a "long-standing member") and, most curious, befriended former Breitbart publisher and Trump adviser Bannon. While Guo told the New York Times that he and Bannon have a "special relationship," he stressed he isn't funneling cash to the hard-right publisher. Thanks to the lawsuit, Guo will likely have to prove in court that his relationship with Bannon isn't financial.


Stone's attacks on Guo didn't end with those details, though. The suit says Stone repeatedly spread false claims that Guo has been convicted of multiple financial crimes in the States and that he has ties to Islamic terror organizations. Guo admits he was imprisoned from 1989 to 1991 in China for aiding the Tiananmen Square protest movement, but his attorneys say that his record in the United States is clean and that any of the charges pending against him in China are the result of "intimidation tactics" to prevent him from spilling secrets about high-level Commuinist Party officials.


"Stone is a political consultant and conspiracy theorist who has made a career out of inventing lies about others in order to call attention to himself," the suit reads. "Stone broadcasts his lies through InfoWars.com, a media platform owned by fellow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, for which Stone is a frequent contributor. Since on or before September 2017, Stone has used that platform to spread defamatory falsehoods about Plaintiff Guo."


Miami Police Posed as Uber Drivers | Miami New Times

Jones getting sued yet again for his big lying mouth. I hope the people who have been tormented by this crank take every dime he will ever make.



Sandy Hook Parents Have Just Hit Alex Jones With Defamation Lawsuits

Suits against the Infowars host keep piling up.

Alex Jones has spent years claiming the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School ― where a shooter killed 20 small children and six adults ― was faked. He has claimed the parents of these dead children are liars and “crisis actors.”



Now, those parents are coming after him.



In a pair of lawsuits filed late Monday, the parents of two children who died in the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, say Jones’ repeated lies and conspiratorial ravings have led to death threats. The suits join at least two other recent cases accusing the Infowars host of defamation.



Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy killed in the shooting, and Leonard Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, who lost their own little boy, filed the suits in Austin, Texas, where Jones’ conspiracy-minded media outlet is based. Each suit is seeking more than $1 million in damages from Jones, Infowars and a related company, Free Speech Systems LLC. Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer is also named in one of the suits.



“Even after these folks had to experience this trauma, for the next five years they were tormented by Alex Jones with vicious lies about them,” Mark Bankston, the lawyer handling the cases for the parents, told HuffPost. “And these lies were meant to convince his audience that the Sandy Hook parents are frauds and have perpetrated a sinister lie on the American people.”


MORE https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0ac383d74bfe1

Wasn't sure where to put this so I'm putting it here.

Now the Mueller investigation into Russian ties are shining a light on the fake news generators.

Jerome Corsi Told Roger Stone WikiLeaks Had Dirt on Hillary’s Health. Then the Attacks Started.

Two days after the conspiracy theorist told the dirty trickster to go after Clinton’s fitness, one of their fellow Infowars contributors did just that.



Weeks before WikiLeaks released emails in 2016 implying Hillary Clinton’s health was failing, conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi emailed Trump associate Roger Stone about the forthcoming leak.


In an August 2, 2016 email to Stone, Corsi suggested they should start spreading rumors about Clinton’s health, as the topic was likely to feature in the forthcoming WikiLeaks dump. Two days after Corsi’s email, Stone’s Infowars associate Paul Joseph Watson released a video accusing Clinton of having a host of ailments, including brain damage.

The video set off a series of right-wing rumors about Clinton’s health. Those rumors worked their way from fringe websites, to Fox News, to Trump himself, who suggested Clinton was too ill to be president. Weeks later, WikiLeaks released the emails Corsi appeared to reference in his email to Stone. For Trump fans, those leaks were confirmation of the health rumors that had taken off with Watson’s video.

Corsi’s emails were revealed on Tuesday when he released a statement of offense drafted by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office. Mueller’s office is investigating Corsi’s and Stone’s alleged contacts with WikiLeaks as part of a broader investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.


On July 25, 2016, Stone encouraged Corsi to make contact with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, according to other emails included in the statement of offense.


Corsi appears to have been successful.


“Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps,” Corsi wrote Stone on August 2, 2016, according to the statement of offense. The embassy appears to be Ecuador’s U.K. embassy, where Assange resides.


Corsi’s email continued, “would not hurt to start suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke... I expect that much of next dump focus, setting stage for [Clinton] Foundation debacle.”

Neither Stone nor Watson returned The Daily Beast’s requests for comment. Corsi’s lawyer declined to comment.

Trump supporters rarely discussed Clinton’s health prior to August 2016, usually limiting themselves to speculation about her condition after a concussion in 2012. (Stone tweeted critically about Clinton’s wellbeing in 2014. In January 2016, Corsi wrote an article for conspiracy website WorldNetDaily, claiming Clinton’s blood thinners could have dangerous side effects.)


But those claims differed from the August allegations, which specifically attacked Clinton’s mental faculties. Corsi’s August 2 email recommended “suggesting HRC old, memory bad, has stroke.” Two days later, on August 4, Watson’s video falsely accused Clinton of suffering strokes, tumors, and degenerative brain diseases.

Watson was a writer and guest host on Infowars in 2016 at the same time Stone and Corsi were contributors. At least once that summer, Watson interviewed Stone about the Trump campaign. All three worked at the right-wing conspiracy outlet in 2017.


“Hillary's bizarre behavior and strange seizures: Is she having a breakdown or does she actually have brain damage?” Watson’s video description read. The video exploded across right-wing Reddit and fringe blogs, quickly amassing more than 1 million views, The Daily Beast reported at the time.


By August 7, the Drudge Report had taken up the attacks, sharing a blog post that claimed Clinton was in poor health because staffers had been photographed helping her up the stairs. “The questionable health condition of Hillary Clinton should be a major issue of the 2016 campaign,” the article begins. The photograph, taken when Clinton briefly stumbled on a staircase, was from February. The following day, the Trump-friendly National Enquirer picked up the Clinton health allegations, running them under the headline “Hillary Clinton’s Secret Health Crisis.” Fox News host Sean Hannity devoted a segment to the manufactured health scare. He would continue to peddle the conspiracy theory over the following weeks, even hosting a doctor who claimed to diagnose Clinton with a brain condition. In an interview with MSNBC Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson stated that misdiagnosis as fact.

By August 15, Trump was parroting the claims about Clinton’s health. “She also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS,” he said during a campaign speech that day. He made similar comments the following day on the campaign trail.


Trump’s campaign trail comments finally prompted the Clinton camp to comment on the health rumors. “Donald Trump is simply parroting lies based on fabricated documents promoted by Roger Stone and his right wing allies,” the campaign said in a statement.


But the meme had already set in voters’ minds. By August 8, “is Hillary having health problems?” was a trending question on Google. The search term “Hillary Clinton health” received little interest before August 4, Google search trends show. But it spiked after Watson’s video, and continued to grow through August 22, when WikiLeaks released its next dump of Clinton documents.


Then, just as Corsi said would happen, WikiLeaks promoted two leaked emails that suggested Clinton suffered health problems as secretary of state.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jerome...arted?ref=wrap

I saw Jerome Corsi doing an interview yesterday in which he said he didn’t do anything wrong, this is just politics.

What scumbags.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

"I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

There is nothing new about Fake News. Tom Jefferson wrote this more than 200 years ago, in a letter complaining about the misinformation in newspapers, and provocatively suggested the advantages of not reading the newspaper...

full text:
Amendment I (Speech and Press): Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell

Originally Posted by jabir

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

"I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

There is nothing new about Fake News. Tom Jefferson wrote this more than 200 years ago, in a letter complaining about the misinformation in newspapers, and provocatively suggested the advantages of not reading the newspaper...

full text:
Amendment I (Speech and Press): Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell

Why would this surprise you?

Politicians hate the truth.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Why would this surprise you?

Politicians hate the truth.

And I daresay it was written at a time when journalistic integrity, code of ethics, and the legal ramifications for spreading lies through the press was not as developed as today.

A despicable art form.

The reason that he slagged off the press was probably that they pointed out the hypocrisy of him being so vocal about slavery when, until it because fashionable to do so, he was in fact a wealthy, fourth-generation slave owner.

*That's* one of the reasons why politicians hate the press.