DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Criminalise politicians who lie?

What a phenomenal idea.

https://www.bangor.ac.uk/news/2024-...untry-to-criminalise-politicians-who-lie

Under the proposals it would be a criminal offence for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. Proceedings would have to be brought within six months from the date on which the statement was made.

It would be considered a defence if it could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. Being prosecuted for such a law would disqualify a person from being a Senedd member.

"But this is Murica and we have freedumb of speech and all that!"

lol….we’ve read this book before. They all lie. But only the democrats would be prosecuted for it.

A stupid idea. In the end it would become your guy lied, mine didn't.

It's an extremely stupid idea that essentially taps the government as the "Ministry of Truth". Any law targeting "politicians who lie" would require someone to adjudicate:

- Whether a statement was a verifiable fact or an opinion/interpretation
- Whether the speaker knew it was false
- Whether it was material
- Whether it was "deceptive" versus spin, exaggeration, or a bad prediction

Those are not technical questions. They are political ones. The party that controls prosecutors and judges will apply the standard to its enemies and ignore it for its allies. Politicians would have to treat every sentence as potential evidence. Hyperbole, slogans, contested stats, and forecasts would all become legally risky.

Elections, political opponents, journalists, and fact-checkers exist to punish liars. They do it imperfectly (mores than ever before), but they do it without giving the state a veto over political argument. Criminal law already covers actual fraud, perjury, false statements to the government, and defamation. Expanding it to cover campaign rhetoric, policy claims, or whatever it is to be claimed a lie is not "accountability".....it is using the criminal process as a continuation of politics by other means. That path has a well-documented record of damaging democracies. The solution is not to let the people politicians already fight with decide, under threat of jail, which statements are allowed. That trades one form of untrustworthiness for a more dangerous one.

Absolutely stupid but not surprised people on here want to control speech in this way.

No surprise who especially wouldn't want this.

The party of "Flood the zone with [censored]" .... there is only ONE reason to flood the media with false information and lies ... and that is what the Party that is Trump and MAGA wants to do. The party that has a pathological liar as President.

Yes it wouldn't be easy - but then something being challenging shouldn't be a reason to dismiss it. ""make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive."" is pretty cut and dry. It would be like proving deformation ....

Say like claiming $50 million is earmarked for condoms for Hamas . . Like claiming endlessly that the election was stolen and that Dominion were somehow compromised ....

And no one is trying to control what you say or your language ... You sir are free to continue lying and free to keep spreading [censored] and reposting the lies you see from social media. You are not a politician.

There would be no government.

Politicians are professional liars. That is what they do.

The main reason I hate politics. MTG went to the House with a net worth of around $700k and left with a net worth of $25m.

Now she can afford to tell the truth.

It makes no difference which party both are corrupt.

trump could not tell the truth if it were tattooed on his forehead.

Politicians are liars and will do anything to stay in power. They practice in the mirror.

To the them truth is taboo.

certainly both parties lie. And there are examples on both sides (all sides) of people who do it to the extreme. I don't think it is completely equal and opposite and I think it's getting worse.

If you don't find it interesting to see that a western industrialized democracy is interested in trying to tackle this - I don't know what to tell you. Sure it's a long shot... a very long shot .... but I find it interesting and the thought of doing better and expecting better to be attractive and worth discussion.

How would that be any different than what we're witnessing now?

Yeah, we saw that story play out during COVID... and then later when Biden tried to crown a basket-case as Minister of Truth or sds.

We have three classes of individuals... stupid people not really capable of discerning true or false, people that are so married to their bias they will believe anything (or at least parrot it as if they do), and intelligent adults capable of seeking the real truth behind any stuffed shirt's rhetoric. All this does is punish the only class of those three we should be protecting by stifling speech itself.

Like, "They're eating the dogs! They're eating the cats! They're eating the pets!"?

How ironic.

The border is secure.

If something is against the law, it can be dealt with without some subjective law.

Politician says they will lower taxes. Opposing party does everything in their power to see that doesn't happen, then jails the politician for telling a lie.

No, that wouldn't make any sense what so ever and no-one in that situation would be accused ... That does not fit anywhere near the definition of what the article talks about.

Tell me - if words and statements of fact are so impossible to interpret and legislate for, how is it that people can be taken to court deformation and libel?

Anyway with that said - while I think the idea is interesting. I know it will never happen, and I am not even going to say it should happen. I'll simply stand by the fact that if it were in any way possible to improve the current ability for politicians lie with with impunity, it would only be good and discussing ways to make it happen are worthwhile even if they seem improbable or challenging.

I think we get it. Somehow in fantasy land people such as yourself keep believing that electing people that cut your taxes while increasing spending is a logical conclusion to lowering the national debt. While somehow you think the problem is those explaining to you how that won't work. How that without huge and drastic spending cuts you can't cut the nation's income, "taxes". And usually the answer to that question from your side is to take and cut programs for the poor. I've witnessed this exact same thing for most of my life. And none of that has ever made any sense.

I'm quite sure you have never run your household budget that way. Surely you don't believe decreasing your income while spending more would help you get out f debt do you?

Illegal immigration is illegal. But as has been pointed out to you many times crossing the border illegally is a minor misdemeanor. Nowhere does such a category of crime call for any length of detention. If you want to deport them, deport them. That's not the issue here. Warehousing people like animals for committing minor misdemeanors is something nobody should feel comfortable with.

Then there is the fact that during the trump administration requirements and the process has been changed to the point that many who were never here illegally before are now suddenly illegal. In effect this administration has "created" illegals. You're a smart man Peen. I know if you bothered to look into this you would figure it out for yourself.

Not a chance in a billion that any such law would pass or be even remotely enforceable.

Talk about weaponization of politics...

First victim.. DJT...