City University of London Students Vote to Ban Tabloid News.

[JimC]

Libel laws don't do that.

I didn't say they did.

Settled then? So we agree that libel laws are not about banning the publication of untrue news stories?

To be fair, mm was simply suggesting that in the case of libel laws, courts have to determine the truth or falsehood of a comment about a person, and was arguing by analogy that this shows in principle they could do the same about more general news stories. I think he is making a huge stretch, though, for several reasons. Firstly, many aspects of the law about remedying the hurt done to a person, and/or punishing those who cause it; libel laws are a well established sub-set of that traditional role, so courts doing what mm suggests would not have precedent and legislation to work within. Additionally, the truth or falsity of news statements will have much more political import than a case of libel, making any attempt to judge news stories a minefield (particularly if it involves banning certain stories), and an opportunity for authoritarian governments to suppress dissent.

[Hermit]

Libel laws don't do that.

I didn't say they did.

Settled then? So we agree that libel laws are not about banning the publication of untrue news stories?

To be fair, mm was simply suggesting that in the case of libel laws, courts have to determine the truth or falsehood of a comment about a person, and was arguing by analogy that this shows in principle they could do the same about more general news stories. I think he is making a huge stretch, though, for several reasons. Firstly, many aspects of the law about remedying the hurt done to a person, and/or punishing those who cause it; libel laws are a well established sub-set of that traditional role, so courts doing what mm suggests would not have precedent and legislation to work within. Additionally, the truth or falsity of news statements will have much more political import than a case of libel, making any attempt to judge news stories a minefield (particularly if it involves banning certain stories), and an opportunity for authoritarian governments to suppress dissent.

And there's the rub. Should someone publish a story about Donald Trump having had a golden shower administered in a Moscow hotel room, and Trump can prove that he was at a conference at the time this event was said to have taken place, the truth of the matter can be easily established. He'd win the libel suit, and the court's judgement will be uncontroversial. Should someone publish a story around September 2020, on the other hand, relating how by any metric Trump's presidency was the worst by any national leader in the past two centuries, the judgement would also have to be a resounding "not true". Should its publication be banned on those grounds?

[Brian Peacock]

There's only one way to settle this...

Banjos at dawn!

[mistermack]

Libel laws don't do that.

I didn't say they did.

Settled then? So we agree that libel laws are not about banning the publication of untrue news stories?

Enjoy your straw man. Dress him up however you like.
If you're happy arguing with things people didn't say, you have a very full and rewarding life ahead of you.

[Hermit]

Libel laws don't do that.

I didn't say they did.

Settled then? So we agree that libel laws are not about banning the publication of untrue news stories?

Enjoy your straw man. Dress him up however you like.
If you're happy arguing with things people didn't say, you have a very full and rewarding life ahead of you.

Your denial is not a river.

False news also ought to be grounds for a ban.

That's not what libel laws do, and you moved the goal posts from bans of untrue stories to libel cases.

[Jason]

There's only one way to settle this...

Banjos at dawn!

[mistermack]

That's not what libel laws do, and you moved the goal posts from bans of untrue stories to libel cases.

That's not what goal posts do.
If you did your research, you would find that goal posts are just there to mark out the goals of a sporting field, and support a net.
And I think you'll find I made no mention of any, nor did I change the location of any at any time in this thread. You should check your facts.

[Hermit]

That's not what libel laws do, and you moved the goal posts from bans of untrue stories to libel cases.

That's not what goal posts do.

Did I say goalposts moved?

[Forty Two]

Libel laws don't do that.

I didn't say they did.

Settled then? So we agree that libel laws are not about banning the publication of untrue news stories?

To be fair, mm was simply suggesting that in the case of libel laws, courts have to determine the truth or falsehood of a comment about a person, and was arguing by analogy that this shows in principle they could do the same about more general news stories. I think he is making a huge stretch, though, for several reasons. Firstly, many aspects of the law about remedying the hurt done to a person, and/or punishing those who cause it; libel laws are a well established sub-set of that traditional role, so courts doing what mm suggests would not have precedent and legislation to work within. Additionally, the truth or falsity of news statements will have much more political import than a case of libel, making any attempt to judge news stories a minefield (particularly if it involves banning certain stories), and an opportunity for authoritarian governments to suppress dissent.

Also, with libel, mere falsity is not the test. It has to be an injurious falsehood - injurious to a person in terms of their reputation. So, lying about someone is not libel if it doesn't hurt them (thus, simply reporting incorrect news about a person is not libel). Moreover, expressions of opinion and inferences drawn from facts are not libelous. So, if you think someone's a jerkface, that's not libel, even if you print it.

The difficulty you get into in a court determining whether news is fake or real is that reporting is done via sources who tell the reporter things, examination of documents and witnessing of events. So, the absolute truth is almost never reported. All you get is an approximation, in most cases.

As we can see from the various "fact checkers" out there, whether something is true or false is often dependent on interpretation and inference, as well as where a fact checker affords one "side" the benefit of the doubt more often than not. I've seen fact checkers draw conclusions of "mostly true" based on the fact checker's assessment of certain people's intent. And, there is often wide room to declare something half true or mostly false.