Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing 'fake news'-New Proposal To FEC

a reply to: Phage

We are going in a circle here.

Similarly, after a social media user clicks “share” on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires “actual malice”, defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.


Nudge social media users to not view disputed content. Lawmakers should require platforms to provide an opt-in (or, more weakly, opt-out) system for viewing disputed content and periodically remind users of their options.

I'm responding to that. Using threats of libel to prevent people from sharing "a disputed item". Nudging people to not view speech the government defines as wrong.

We already have Libel laws aplenty do we not? What is to be gained by government regulators deciding what speech may or may not be shared online?

a reply to: Blaine91555

I'm responding to that.

And ignoring the point of the proposal. That's cherry picking. The proposal concerns advertising. That's the only reason the FEC might have anything to do with it.

Disinformation advertising has key features that should guide our plans in how to reduce and combat it. It undermines our sense of a verifiable truth, it splinters the electorate with divisive messages, it has very little transparency attached, and its financing is difficult to trace.

Nudging people to not view speech the government defines as wrong.

No. Pointing out that something is political advertising and may not be factual or simple opinion.

We already have Libel laws aplenty do we not?

Yes.And the president wants to make it easier to prevail in such law suits. Is that a good thing?

What is to be gained by government regulators deciding what speech may or may not be shared online

I don't see that being part of the proposals. I do see a call for accountability in a certain form of speech, political advertising.

a reply to: Phage

I have no issues with Libel laws. They are needed and already exist.

I'm not sure what more to say if you don't see the problem with what I quoted directly from that document. A government using intimidation to silence speech is a scary thing and that is very clearly proposing exactly that.

Not to mention requiring any social media company to monitor and flag content under threat of government retaliation.

Let the free flow of information go on online as it should be. Let the reader beware. The only other option is limited speech. I'm not talking about illegal content.

I'll leave this conversation at what I read there I find offensive to my sensibilities. What's behind it should be transparent to those who want to see it.

a reply to: Blaine91555
We are discussing a proposal that the FEC regulate internet political advertising similar to the way political advertising is regulated in other media.

Some seem to think that is inappropriate. For some reason.

a reply to: Phage

Again you are ignoring the part of the document I'm objecting to. The link was in the article that is the topic of this thread. It's more than what you suggest and there is more behind it than you are acknowledging. No matter how you frame it, it's an attempt to stifle speech.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Again you are ignoring the part of the document I'm objecting to.

On the contrary, I have addressed the part you object to. More than once.

No matter how you frame it, it's an attempt to stifle speech.

I suppose that banning ATS members who post hoaxes is an attempt to stifle speech as well? Disallowing links to certain websites? Autohoaxing certain youtube channels? Or is it a way to provide accountability?

The proposals seeks accountability in political advertising on the internet. Shameful.

a reply to: Phage

If being opposed to more regulation of speech is "shameful" I'll wear that insult from you Phage.

If you think a government agency can be trusted to not abuse this, I have this bridge....

Nudge social media users to not view disputed content.

If that does not scare you ..........

What follows "nudge" as they chip away with their hammers at basic human rights?

a reply to: seasonal

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

a reply to: Blaine91555

If being opposed to more regulation of speech is "shameful" I'll wear that insult from you Phage.

Do you think that FEC regulation of other media is overbearing? Stifling?

If that does not scare you

As a vague proposal. No, it doesn't scare me in the least. I don't see how anything like that could be implemented.

a reply to: Phage

It's in the document for a reason and I imagine that was carefully thought out, including the part about nudging people to not read material that's not approved of by people the voters have no control over.

It even mentions some so called political advertising is not paid for leaving open the option to label anyone's online activity political advertising.

Others, like memes, are free to create.

If god forbid I was a member of a political party and I chose to post about my support for a candidate, as I read it I could be labeled as posting political advertising.

a reply to: Blaine91555

The document is a proposal from 3 attorneys. It is far from any actual regulation. Actual regulation would require, before anything else, a definition of political advertising.

You don't have any problem with a complete lack of accountability in political advertising on the internet?

a reply to: Phage

Interesting debate, but I think we've played it out.

a reply to: darkbake

I notice you try to point everything towards the Rep party,and deflect facts regarding the Democrats,you offer no proof other then a long rant,notice all the news papers you quoted,all liberal press

a reply to: Oldtimer2

If I was a right wing news site, blog or page, I would be very worried. Fake News and faux outrage are their bread and butter.

a reply to: Phage

Maybe not a repeal of the First, but I could see an argument for a curtailment of the Seventh.

Depending on how the situation were handled, of course.

A simple issuing of a fine as opposed to an accusation of libel (in every case).

And if the fear of reprisal was falsely used (by the government) in the form of issuing fines, would that not be detrimental to the First Amendment as well?

Granted incorporation becomes an issue, but we are dealing with a national issue and not a state issue I would think.


Or am I way off?