I saw a little of Michael Crichton on C-SPAN this weekend. Crichton is a science fiction writer of some note -- he wrote Jurassic Park of movie fame -- who is very suspicious of the Human Caused Global Warming fear that is prevalent now. The global warming debate aside, Crichton mentioned that he thought in the not too distant future that we would have "information liability." Now, he didn't expand on this, but I'm guessing this means that someone who puts out bogus information could be sued. In the particular instance talked about, a media researcher had said there had been 912 articles on global warming over a period of three years (or some other relatively short period of time, my memory may fail me) and all of them supported the human causation theory. Crichton remarked that on the face of it this number was suspect. On further investigation it turned out there were some 12,000 articles written on global warming. Further, given the count the researcher had cited, it was possible to reconstruct the probable search string used to identify the 912 articles. Then, on reading these articles, it became apparent that it was far from the case that there were no reservations about human causation of global warming advanced. The information was wrong, recklessly wrong.
Anyway, so much for context. I think the idea of information liability is great! If the news media wants to say something -- such as that 912 articles on global warming all consistently blame the measured increase in average global temperatures on human causes, such as increased emissions of CO2 gas -- they may be held accountable! Imagine sueing the hell out of CBS and 60 minutes for their attempted lynching of George Bush last year in the memogate incident, or sueing the executive of CNN, since resigned, who accused the US military in Gavros, Switzerland of targeting and killing journalists. Obviously, there would be exceptions. Can you sue private individuals on forums such as this? I suspect not. But no one trusts what is said on these forums implicitly, not without further corroboration.
Anyway, I personally find the idea of information liability pretty darned interesting. Put your money where your mouth is. Get your facts right, or we're coming after you! I suppose this is a double edged sword, but I personally prefer that the truth be current rather than distortions.
Anyway, I personally find the idea of information liability pretty darned interesting. Put your money where your mouth is. Get your facts right, or we're coming after you! I suppose this is a double edged sword, but I personally prefer that the truth be current rather than distortions.
First Amendment concerns aside, this would be akin to legislating morality (honesty is part of it, no?). I think it's a step in the wrong direction. The burden should be on the one listening, not speaking. I've ready plenty of BS in my life, but cross-referencing is generally not a problem except for obscure subject matters. I can take care of myself as much as I need to.
and libel and slander only impute liability if an individual's reputation/ability to earn a living is harmed (e.g. joe knowingly caused global warming, and killed a puppy while he was doing it), as opposed to a simple mistatement of fact.
and libel and slander only impute liability if an individual's reputation/ability to earn a living is harmed (e.g. joe knowingly caused global warming, and killed a puppy while he was doing it), as opposed to a simple mistatement of fact.
So we should punish people for misstating facts? Along with morality, I don't believe in legislating stupidity. When someone (around here, for instance) says something stupid about me, my first instinct is to laugh, not sue.
Besides, what more besides reputation does a person have to protect?
not at all..I like the current system. if you don't like the facts as they're stated/reported, get alternate media. love or hate fox news. they've done a wonderful job providing counterpoint to the other news outlets.
speech, speech and more speech...it's the hallmark of a vital democracy. the burden should be on the listener to discern BS from fact.
Information product Liability
