A text is currently discussed , that would forbid websites that mis-inform, mis-represent abortion and its consequences. The outcry went after associations noticed that, when you type "IVG" into Google, the first result that comes up is a catholic propaganda website. Some journalists tried to call the number given on the wesite (claim to help women), and they got no information, just guilt.
Les Républicains (the right party) claimed it was an attack on freedom of expression and wil try to bock the text from becoming a law.

But this is bullshit. You can say "I'm against abortion", this is your right, covered by freedom of expression. Presenting yourself as legitimate, and giving false information, in order to enforce your personal views on the topic, that should be forbidden. It already is, in France, this law just extends the prohibition to websites.

aban57 wrote:A text is currently discussed , that would forbid websites that mis-inform, mis-represent abortion and its consequences. The outcry went after associations noticed that, when you type "IVG" into Google, the first result that comes up is a catholic propaganda website. Some journalists tried to call the number given on the wesite (claim to help women), and they got no information, just guilt.
Les Républicains (the right party) claimed it was an attack on freedom of expression and wil try to bock the text from becoming a law.

But this is bullshit. You can say "I'm against abortion", this is your right, covered by freedom of expression. Presenting yourself as legitimate, and giving false information, in order to enforce your personal views on the topic, that should be forbidden. It already is, in France, this law just extends the prohibition to websites.

Excellent.

So .. who is gonna judge what's misinformation and whatnot?

tuco wrote:So .. who is gonna judge what's misinformation and whatnot?

How about the facts?

lol

Let me rephrase it then. Who is gonna give hmm order, and on what bases, to ISPs to shut the anti-abortion sites down? Can we have wording of the law? Because if we would I would not need to ask.

I assume, just like with prohibition of holocaust denial in some countries, someone will have to press charges, police will have to investigate and individual cases will be brought to court, who then will decide.

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

Great contribution. Critical thinking at its finest. Spirit of adult, intelligent and educated discourse @rationalskepticism.org And I am being accused of engaging only in bickering. As my posting history shows. Talk about lies. Cool story bruder.

Now, I assume then that for example washing detergents in Germany work as advertised, as seen on TV. Good find, gonna buy them from there then.

Oh so you can actually produce something outside of bickering. Why do I have to bitch-slap you before you do? Cant be lazy for discourse, else it becomes bickering, or scoring or shouting in the dark.

This!

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".

Merci beaucoup. Now, where are the grils?

grils ?

I speak French, now :)

Context, camarade, I always work in context.

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.)

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.)

Agreed, this is a brazen attack on free speech. False advertising's different in kind, since it's not restricting the expression of opinion, but the act of defrauding people. Truth is a matter of opinion, and the answer to lies isn't empowering the government to decide what truth is, but counter-arguments. Let speech be fought with speech, not state coercion.

Sorry I forgot to mention that, but a groupe of around 15 people, scientists mostly, will be consulted before enforcing the law.

Byron 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.)

Agreed, this is a brazen attack on free speech. False advertising's different in kind, since it's not restricting the expression of opinion, but the act of defrauding people. Truth is a matter of opinion, and the answer to lies isn't empowering the government to decide what truth is, but counter-arguments. Let speech be fought with speech, not state coercion.

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.

Yeah but the smiling kids with Down's ad that's been banned in France isn't banned because it's scientifically inaccurate. It's banned because it might discourage people who think termination is the right decision for them or make people who terminated Down's pregnancies feel guilt. Stuff like that isn't being banned for inaccuracy. It's being banned so it doesn't influence people's emotions and decisions.

I don't see what you're refering to, but if it already happened, it has nothing to do with the law we are talking about.