Opinions are a matter of opinion. Truth, where it containts factual claims, is not a matter of opinion.

aban57 wrote:Again, this is a scientific matter. Anti-vax poses the same problem. Both rely on lies and misrepresentation of facts to spread. Facts are not matter of opinion.

No, they're not, but what constitutes facts, and the methodology used to decide them, are. It used to be a fact that bacteria couldn't survive in the gut; a lot of destructive and pointless ulcer surgery later, that "fact" was disproven. I don't for a second believe that antivaxers are the next Barry Marshall, but nor do I trust any government committee to make the call.

Antivaxers are being beaten back, slowly but surely, by speech. By all means, strike off quack researches who falsify their data, vigorously challenge antivaxers and other woo merchants, discredit them by any and all means, but don't use the power of the state to punish them for their opinions. If nothing else, it's counter-productive: it creates martyrs, and gives the impression that there's something to hide.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Opinions are a matter of opinion. Truth, where it containts factual claims, is not a matter of opinion.

Bad news for philosophers ...

Byron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Opinions are a matter of opinion. Truth, where it containts factual claims, is not a matter of opinion.

Bad news for philosophers ...

Byron wrote:what constitutes facts, and the methodology used to decide them, are ((a matter of opinion)). It used to be a fact that bacteria couldn't survive in the gut; a lot of destructive and pointless ulcer surgery later, that "fact" was disproven.

My double brackets, I hope I'm not misrepresenting you, it is my opinion that philosophy has a habit of surviving its obituaries.

tuco wrote:

Now, why to cherry-pick? Why not to use the same principle for any kind of misinformation? Starting with marketing.

Exactly, why shouldn't that be a thing? It's about time bullshitters were held accountable.

It is not a thing. As noted, for example, I have not seen headline: Country X is to ban unrealistic fuel consumption propaganda websites.

All I was asking, why one is allowed to, bullshit, while the other not? The answer I got was: one is more harmful than the other and "exaggeration" ... is allowed .. where exaggeration is, obviously, not a statement of fact but exaggeration of a fact. Does not compute to me but whatever.

This is, to me, clearly political issue, matter of power of particular lobby groups, not a matter of bullshitters being held accountable.

---
edit: Just yesterday I saw in tube sticker: Real man does not send woman for abortion. Now I'd be curious how this bullshit compares to the bullshit that "will be banned". How consequences compare? This is rhetorical question btw because who can count it? Nobody.

Shrunk wrote:In theory, a good idea. But it only works if you have a reliable method of determining the facts. I could see the current US administration passing a similar law outlawing websites that it considers to be promoting the "false" claim that anthropogenic climate change is an established fact. Then what do you do? Try to prove in court that the claim is not false Or appeal to the more straightforward principle of freedom of expression? Personally, I don't think courts or legislatures should be in the business of determining scientific facts. (That does not mean courts cannot still determine that a particular source is promoting material that is deceptive. But it should be determined on a case by case basis, with intent to deceive and harm also being demonstrated before legal sanctions follow.)

This worked with creationism or intelligent design. The courts are more corrupt now though. Risky business.

Willie71 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:In theory, a good idea. But it only works if you have a reliable method of determining the facts. I could see the current US administration passing a similar law outlawing websites that it considers to be promoting the "false" claim that anthropogenic climate change is an established fact. Then what do you do? Try to prove in court that the claim is not false Or appeal to the more straightforward principle of freedom of expression? Personally, I don't think courts or legislatures should be in the business of determining scientific facts. (That does not mean courts cannot still determine that a particular source is promoting material that is deceptive. But it should be determined on a case by case basis, with intent to deceive and harm also being demonstrated before legal sanctions follow.)

This worked with creationism or intelligent design. The courts are more corrupt now though. Risky business.

Not quite, the courts ruled that TEACHING creationism or intelligent design in public schools violated the 1st amendment since it established that both of those things are religious teachings, not scientific teachings. The court did not rule that creationism or intelligent design is illegal or false though. It simply said that for public schools it violates the establishment clause. Granted the ruling in Dover vs Kitzmiller was a landmark for science against woo, but still, the courts did not rule that all creationism or intelligent design is false.

zoon wrote:

Byron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Opinions are a matter of opinion. Truth, where it containts factual claims, is not a matter of opinion.

Bad news for philosophers ...

Byron wrote:what constitutes facts, and the methodology used to decide them, are ((a matter of opinion)). It used to be a fact that bacteria couldn't survive in the gut; a lot of destructive and pointless ulcer surgery later, that "fact" was disproven.

My double brackets, I hope I'm not misrepresenting you, it is my opinion that philosophy has a habit of surviving its obituaries.

Nope, no misrepresentation I can see.

willhud9 wrote:[...] Granted the ruling in Dover vs Kitzmiller was a landmark for science against woo, but still, the courts did not rule that all creationism or intelligent design is false.

Yup, and doubtless seeing witchfinders general waiting in the wings, American courts have long refused to rule on the truth of religious claims.

The iron law of unintended consequences guarantees that, once courts and legislatures set off down the road of policing speech, it'll be abused to silence awkward opinions. Ban antivaxers' dangerous nonsense today, and tomorrow, doctors or researches with a vested interest sue to silence those with genuine grounds to challenge a consensus, or a drug company sues to bury research that threatens its profits.

Ban false advertising. Ban quacks from pushing snake oil. But leave speech alone.

Essentially in the case of anti-abortion propaganda it should be legal for a website to exist that says abortions are dangerous, etc. but it should be illegal for a group of people to advertise such warnings via television, radio, newspaper, etc.

But when you start regulating the internet as you would television, radio, and newspaper you open up a huge can of worms and a lot of issues.

willhud9 wrote:Essentially in the case of anti-abortion propaganda it should be legal for a website to exist that says abortions are dangerous, etc. but it should be illegal for a group of people to advertise such warnings via television, radio, newspaper, etc.

But when you start regulating the internet as you would television, radio, and newspaper you open up a huge can of worms and a lot of issues.

Why? The only difference is the transmission media.

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:In theory, a good idea. But it only works if you have a reliable method of determining the facts. I could see the current US administration passing a similar law outlawing websites that it considers to be promoting the "false" claim that anthropogenic climate change is an established fact. Then what do you do? Try to prove in court that the claim is not false Or appeal to the more straightforward principle of freedom of expression? Personally, I don't think courts or legislatures should be in the business of determining scientific facts. (That does not mean courts cannot still determine that a particular source is promoting material that is deceptive. But it should be determined on a case by case basis, with intent to deceive and harm also being demonstrated before legal sanctions follow.)

This worked with creationism or intelligent design. The courts are more corrupt now though. Risky business.

Not quite, the courts ruled that TEACHING creationism or intelligent design in public schools violated the 1st amendment since it established that both of those things are religious teachings, not scientific teachings. The court did not rule that creationism or intelligent design is illegal or false though. It simply said that for public schools it violates the establishment clause. Granted the ruling in Dover vs Kitzmiller was a landmark for science against woo, but still, the courts did not rule that all creationism or intelligent design is false.

The misrepresentation of science to advocate against abortion should be illegal. Presenting an opinion or religious teaching needs full disclosure that it is a religious teaching.

The courts ruled that intelligent design and creationism are not science, and therefore cannot be taught as science. Same principle can be used regarding abortion teaching.

I'm tempted to take a hard line on this. Those who disseminate deliberate misinformation for ideological purposes, and in doing so potentially or actually endanger the lives of actual sentient human beings (and here I explicitly refer to those capable of communicating directly to others), should be made liable for that danger.

This is the web mentioned in OP:

http://www.ivg.social-sante.gouv.fr/

What kind of information, on this particular site, we talk about?

aban57 wrote:There's aslo a law about false advertising in France.
This text adds a new disposition to the previous text that created a fellony for obstruction to abortion right, saying :

« Le dernier alinéa de l'article L. 2223-2 du code de la santé publique est complété par les mots : « par tout moyen de communication au public, y compris en diffusant ou en transmettant par voie électronique ou en ligne, des allégations, indications de nature à induire intentionnellement en erreur, dans un but dissuasif, sur les caractéristiques ou les conséquences médicales d'une interruption volontaire de grossesse ».

Roughly translated, it says :
the last text is completed by the words : "by any mean of communication to the public, including by spreading or transmitting, electronically or online, allegations, indications meant to intentionally misslead , with a deterrent purpose, on characteristics and medical consequences of an abortion".

This is immediately problematic. Intentionally mislead or with a deterrent purpose.

So if a website was not intentionally misleading or without deterrent purpose, it would be ok? The name of this very thread is misleading, with a deterrent purpose.

Is there a precedent, in other media? I would really be interested in details, because hypothetical debates without data, facts, are misleading.

According to the politicians who wrote the text, they want anti-abortion to come out of the closet. An anti-abortion site would be ok, as long as it's advertised as such, no disguised as an information website, which it isn't.

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Essentially in the case of anti-abortion propaganda it should be legal for a website to exist that says abortions are dangerous, etc. but it should be illegal for a group of people to advertise such warnings via television, radio, newspaper, etc.

But when you start regulating the internet as you would television, radio, and newspaper you open up a huge can of worms and a lot of issues.

Why? The only difference is the transmission media.

Because unlike television, radio, and newspaper the internet is a place of free speech. If you start regulating what is appropriate speech you set precedent for future leaders to say: Saying anything socialistic online is punishable by jail time or heavy fines. Blogs, and personal opinion sites becomes restricted, etc.

It is a serious abridgement on speech rights. The internet must remain public. It must remain a center for public speech no matter how toxic said speech is.

I think people who deny the Holocaust are idiotic, but I will defend their right to hold that opinion and believe laws that make Holocaust denial illegal to be nothing more than thought crime.

The same principle applies here. Either you grant freedom of speech, your you impose arbitrary restrictions which make the freedom of speech incredibly flimsy and not really a freedom at all.

For example, it is not illegal for me to stand in a park and stating my opinions, or even lying in public. I could go up to someone and say, "Abortion causes cervical cancer" with no repercussions and that should be how it should be. Because if you restrict that the government can decide at a later to restrict more innocuous things based on whims. No thank you.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:In theory, a good idea. But it only works if you have a reliable method of determining the facts. I could see the current US administration passing a similar law outlawing websites that it considers to be promoting the "false" claim that anthropogenic climate change is an established fact. Then what do you do? Try to prove in court that the claim is not false Or appeal to the more straightforward principle of freedom of expression? Personally, I don't think courts or legislatures should be in the business of determining scientific facts. (That does not mean courts cannot still determine that a particular source is promoting material that is deceptive. But it should be determined on a case by case basis, with intent to deceive and harm also being demonstrated before legal sanctions follow.)

This worked with creationism or intelligent design. The courts are more corrupt now though. Risky business.

Not quite, the courts ruled that TEACHING creationism or intelligent design in public schools violated the 1st amendment since it established that both of those things are religious teachings, not scientific teachings. The court did not rule that creationism or intelligent design is illegal or false though. It simply said that for public schools it violates the establishment clause. Granted the ruling in Dover vs Kitzmiller was a landmark for science against woo, but still, the courts did not rule that all creationism or intelligent design is false.

The misrepresentation of science to advocate against abortion should be illegal.

What does that mean exactly? Punishable by what? A fine? It restricts speech. If I held the factually incorrect opinion that abortion caused cervical cancer I have the freedom to do so and the freedom to share that opinion with whomever I want. The exchange of information is up to the listener of information to actually discern if what I shared with them is factual.

Clinics that misrepresent scientific studies to force women to not get abortions are unethical. Pro-life clinics that lie to their clients should be shut down because that is false practice. But websites? If the website is not selling anything than it is just an opinion. Should WebMD be shut down because it says I am dying whenever I put in my symptoms or should I take with a grain of salt what I find from an internet source and not my general practitioner?

At what point do we hold the individual accountable for their own intake of outside information?

Presenting an opinion or religious teaching needs full disclosure that it is a religious teaching.

I would disagree with this on the basis of my previous statement. At what point do we hold people accountable for their own intake of outside information? Do I need some elite body to force people to tell me what is "fact" and what is "fiction" or can I be accountable and realize I need to do my own research and formulate my own conclusions based on said research?

If someone tells me the earth is flat because of Biblical quotes and because of his warped view of science and I am suckered into accepting that as fact without research that is on me not the deluded religious fellow.

The courts ruled that intelligent design and creationism are not science, and therefore cannot be taught as science. Same principle can be used regarding abortion teaching.

In public schools i.e. government property where they have the ability to regulate curriculum and ensure secularism.

But in public, the government cannot silence or make a statement on whether or not religious claims are factual or not. The courts did not rule that intelligent design and creationism are not science. The courts ruled that the premise of both of them are religious in nature and that as such cannot be taught in a secular science classroom. They did not address whether or not intelligent design was factual or not, although the court case did do a good job debunking many appeals to credulity brought forth by the Discover Institute.

Calilasseia wrote:I'm tempted to take a hard line on this. Those who disseminate deliberate misinformation for ideological purposes, and in doing so potentially or actually endanger the lives of actual sentient human beings (and here I explicitly refer to those capable of communicating directly to others), should be made liable for that danger.

I could go with that if a lie's the proximate cause of a specific case of harm (say a counsellor lying to a parent whose child's subsequently infected with a preventable disease). General misinformation's too broad, and invites unintended consequences like those I highlighted.

If I'm gonna defend the free speech rights of Nazis, the alt-right, and charity muggers, I've gotta defend those of anti-vaxers, much as I'd like to see 'em slung in lockup.

Yep. The freedom of speech applies most importantly to those who disagree with me.

Byron wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:I'm tempted to take a hard line on this. Those who disseminate deliberate misinformation for ideological purposes, and in doing so potentially or actually endanger the lives of actual sentient human beings (and here I explicitly refer to those capable of communicating directly to others), should be made liable for that danger.

I could go with that if a lie's the proximate cause of a specific case of harm (say a counsellor lying to a parent whose child's subsequently infected with a preventable disease). General misinformation's too broad, and invites unintended consequences like those I highlighted.

If I'm gonna defend the free speech rights of Nazis, the alt-right, and charity muggers, I've gotta defend those of anti-vaxers, much as I'd like to see 'em slung in lockup.

I think you're confusing freedom of speech with freedom to deceive. This law is aimed squarely at false advertising.