Hacker News Reader

Comment by noego | Hacker News Reader

I don't support this specific law, since "gossip" is a nebulous term. That said, the idea is pretty intriguing. I suspect that society would be far better off if the deliberate authoring and spread of misinformation, were made illegal. There would have to be a stupidity-waiver; anyone dumb enough to actually believe in something like Flat-Earth should be allowed to espouse it all they want. But anyone who willfully lies about witnessing things that never happened, or claims possession of evidence that they do not actually possess, should face charges for the deliberate spread of misinformation.

View on HN

This is a bad idea because of the chilling effect it has on unpopular ideas and information. This is especially chilling to scrutinization of long held falsehoods.

I'm thinking of all the "facts" I was taught in school that turned out to be flat wrong.

Such as?

Pluto being a planet lol

Tastebuds. The big crunch.

That the US is a wonderful nation that never did any wrong and never helped dictatorships rise to power in it’s decades long fight against the Soviet Union.

Margarine was healthier than butter. I sure regret following that "fact".

Many countries have successfully enforced laws against libel and slander without infringing on people's ability to espouse genuinely held beliefs, and challenge popular persons/organizations. I fail to see why this is any different.

So then what's being suggested here if those laws already exist? I inferred that the suggestion is to go much further.

Libel and slander laws are only applicable in cases where specific persons can show that it caused them tangible and personal damage. My suggestion is to eliminate the above additional requirement.

If you're in favor of existing slander/libel laws, then you've already trusted the legal system to distinguish between merely unpopular opinions, and willful misinformation. This renders your previous objection moot.

>I suspect that society would be far better off if the deliberate authoring and spread of misinformation, were made illegal.

Who defines "misinformation", and who categorizes "deliberate"?

Duterte.

Many countries already have laws against libel and slander. This isn't something new.

Yes, and I have the same sorts of worries about those laws as well.

> But anyone who willfully lies about witnessing things that never happened, or claims possession of evidence that they do not actually possess, should face charges for the deliberate spread of misinformation.

I had a vision last night in which a large avian diety wearing a tophat informed me of the true nature of existance as well as nuanced details about your private thoughts and secret behaviors.

If I share these details with others, who is the authority responsible for determining their truthiness, or wether or not my subjective experience did indeed happen?

> who is the authority responsible for determining their truthiness

The same authorities who are currently responsible for enforcing laws against libel and slander. Are you also in favor of repealing all such laws?

Gossip, by definition is qualatatively different than libel or slander -- else we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The information I shared in the OP is neither libel or slander, but seems like it would be covered by gossip laws.

( is gossip a sufficiently vague term that this whole debate falls under the modern trope of creating new laws for the purposes of optics, which actually address issues that are already covered by existing legislation? )

Like I mentioned in my original post, I'm not in favor of banning "gossip". I advocated making illegal the deliberate spread of misinformation

If spreading falsehoods is actually punished, informal social networks might not have enough raw material to work with to maintain their structure.

I suspect spreading nonsense is like regular exercise for social groups, helping them remain fit in case they need to be put to use for some real purpose (like, say, unseating the mayor in a scandal).

The problem with your scheme is who gets to be the arbiter of what is misinformation, stupidity, lies, etc.

Remember what happened to Galileo? Or worse, Tyndale?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com