RadioFreeLiberal.com

CA State Senator Proposes Legislation To Require "Social Media" Websites To Develop "Strategic Plan" To "Verify News Stories" To "Mitigate Spread of False Information" Using "Fact Checkers" And Place "Warnings" On News Stories "Containing False Information"

State Senator Richard Pan (D, Sacramento) has proposed legislation (SB 1424) that would require [legislative counsel digest] any person who operates a social media [defined in the bill, see text below] Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site.

http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr18/panbill1.htm

Senator Pan needs to acquaint himself with the first amendment.

Particularly troubling - (c) As used in this section, "social media" means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Senator Pan might also acquaint himself with the term "Big Brother".

Yeah. Seems troublesome on so many levels.

I dont believe the US requires its press to be honest...let along defining what is "real" and what isn't.

Outside of libel, slander and incitement the press and the people pretty much have free reign in this area.

Plus I think you'd see a mass exodus of social media company California operations (though it may be so ingrained at this point it would be difficult to completely disassociate from California.)

It's complicated.

http://law2.umkc.edu/FACULTY/PROJECTS/F ... lying.html

Does the First Amendment protect lying? Depending upon the context, the answer is either "no," "yes," or "maybe." It is an interesting question which the Supreme Court is almost certain to revisit.

[snip][end]

Certain kinds of deceit can be prosecuted - false advertising can be, if you make deceptive and false claims for your product.

That said, I guess my main problem is it again goes against Internet hosts/content servers as common carriers. My view is the main party responsible for making false and deceptive speech is the one making that speech - not the site/server/host on which it is carried.

That said, there are steps that a site can make to reduce the deceptiveness of the content it carries. One might be verifying the identity of entities.

The largest Black Lives Matter page on Facebook was a scam
A CNN report found that the page was being run by a white man in Australia.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/1 ... -page-fake

I think consensus is moving around toward people on Facebook being less deceptive about their identity. Perhaps even forcing some proof of authenticity. Of course, this intersects with the other ongoing concern over privacy rights, and the need for anonymity.

Which I understand can be an issue at message boards as well. MBs allow anonymous speech because there is a legitimate problem of online/offline harassment. BUT, of course, same thing enables people to sock, troll, and play silly games. Alas.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger