This is mental journey will be presented as though there is a classroom and I am your instructor. As I write this I view this almost like writing a script for a play. That is how it will be presented. This will be a journey into free speech, journalism, truth, lies, and quite a few thoughts that intermingle within each of these concepts.
In the times we live in as I write this all of these things frequently come up in discussion.
Let us assume we have a classroom with at least 21 people. This particular lecture could function with as few as 6 people but it would lose the impact.
Instructor: Class today we will be doing a little role playing that hopefully will open some new insights into the world. I need one volunteer that will play the Good Guy. In this particular case if we can make it an actual guy and not a gal that would help as the way I have written this out assumes that is the case. It could be reworked to be for a gal. It could also be worked to be gender neutral but it loses some of the impact. Who then will be the Good Guy?
Good Guy: I will.
Instructor: Thank you. Will you please come take this chair in front of the class. The Good Guy is just another person who has had their ups and downs in life but they are generally viewed to be a good person.
Instructor: Now I am going to hand out a card to the rest of you. Don't reveal your card to each other yet.
Instructor: Look at your card and it will reveal whom you are. There will be five different possibilities here. One of them will say "XYZ News", and another will say "WSAD News". The remaining cards will say "XYZ viewer", "WSAD viewer", or "XYZ and WSAD viewer". These are now your roles. Can XYZ News and WSAD News come up and take these other two chairs at the front of the class?
Instructor: If any of you not in the front of the class have some nice things to say about the Good Guy feel free to do so now. Feel free to make something up at this time since this is a fictional role play.
Instructor: I have just handed XYZ News and WSAD News two different pieces of paper. XYZ News would you read the news you are reporting today.
XYZ News: Despite a bit of a rocky year, Good Guy has helped twenty five families have a Thanksgiving dinner this year. Without the help of Good Guy they would not have been able to do it.
Instructor: WSAD News would you read the news you are reporting today.
WSAD News: Good guy's latest project has been a success. WSAD news has encountered many people that openly speak of their admiration for Good Guy's growing list of accomplishments.
Instructor: Now based upon the card in your hand I want each of you to spend the next minute talking to the person sitting closest to you about the news from the day. Each of you should talk as though the information you have comes from the source your card indicates that you view.
Instructor: I have handed Good Guy a card.
Good Guy: I am going to support this new plan that has been announced by COG Company.
Instructor: I have once again given cards to XYZ News, and WSAD News. XYZ News will you read yours while those that are your viewers pay attention to what you say?
XYZ News: Good Guy has come out in support of the plans of COG Company. COG Company is known to be an advocate for BAD THING 1. What is Good Guy thinking?
Instructor: And WSAD News can you do the same while your viewers listen?
WSAD News: Good Guy has come out in support of the new plan being pursued by COG Company. As more information becomes available we will report on it.
Instructor: As before, please speak to the people near you for the next minute.
Instructor: It is very likely you already knew what might happen. The view of the people is very much shaped by where they get their news and where they get their information. At this early stage there is insufficient information to get into really questionable areas. Let's proceed and see what might happen.
Instructor: I have given XYZ News and WSAD News cards again. Let's hear what they have to say.
XYZ News: Good Guy has come out saying that BAD THING 1 is something he is going to support. This comes soon after his endorsement of COG Company.
WSAD News: COG Company is proceeding with their plans.
Instructor: Talk amongst yourselves for a minute.
Instructor: Meanwhile I have given Good Guy a card. Let's see what he is saying.
Good Guy: I don't endorse BAD THING 1. I think it is a horrible thing. I do think the plan that COG Company is currently pursuing is a good one.
Instructor: Realize this is what Good Guy said. Yet you haven't heard it yet. You won't hear it until your source of news let's you hear it.
Instructor: I have given XYZ News and WSAD News their new cards.
XYZ News: Good Guy thinks the current plan that COG Company who endorses BAD THING 1 is currently a good plan. How low the Good Guy has fallen.
WSAD News: Good Guy appeared to report the following "I don't endorse BAD THING 1. I think it is a horrible thing. I do think the plan that COG Company is currently pursuing is a good one."
Instructor: Once again please talk amongst yourselves again based upon the knowledge YOU encountered from your viewing sources.
Instructor: The two news agencies now have new news to report.
XYZ News: We have learned that Good Guy was never a good guy. His support of BAD THING 1 is no surprise. He reminds us of HISTORICAL BAD GUY.
WSAD News: We have learned that Good Guy was never a good guy. His support of BAD THING 1 is no surprise. He reminds us of HISTORICAL BAD GUY.
Instructor: Speak amongst each other for a minute.
Instructor: There is new news.
XYZ News: Good Guy says he not only loves BAD THING 1 he thinks BAD THING 2 was one of the best things to happen ever. He also has a bad hair style!
WSAD News: Good Guy is under fire again for his followers. His followers are violent and have advocated for attacking anyone that dare challenge their leader Good Guy!
Instructor: Go ahead and spend the next five minutes talking with the people around you. This is where the experiment will end and I will switch to a lecture mode to go over some things that I notice and I suspect many of you did as well.
Observations / Lecture
If you live in the United States of America then enshrined in our Bill of Rights and Constitution as the First Amendment is Free Speech. This also protects journalists. You may have encountered the "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" as an argument for reasons free speech should be prohibited.
Does freedom of speech mean you are free to lie?
Yes. It does.
However, that does not make you free from the consequences of your actions.
For example if a person has people that follow them for one reason or another and they over time speak of why a target group of people should be hated, then they ultimately tell their followers to attack that target group that is typically known as incitement. Those that commit acts of violence are hopefully convicted but in just system the one who incited them to violence should also face consequences from the justice system.
What if the person lied? What if they made it up? Does that make it worse?
What if the one inciting the violence is a journalist? Should they be free from consequence?
In the past the answer was a resounding NO. There were indeed consequences. Journalists should be able to report on whatever they want as long as the evidence supports what they are saying.
When journalists make up something they can be charged with defamation and face lawsuits. This is still the case.
However, there seems to be a flaw in this that is often exploited these days.
What if a single entity supplies multiple news agencies (journalists) with the same talking points that happen to be fabricated but a wide range of news outlets report the same thing (often verbatim) at the same time?
Who do you go after for defamation? In the case above. Both news agencies repeated the same lie. Which one did the defamation? Can you look at the source that provided them all the same talking point and go after that entity with some kind of incitement charge?
Recently, we had many Democrats in Congress come out saying the exact same talking points word for word on the same day. It isn't the first time. It has also happened with some Republicans in the past, but not recently.
Whom should be held accountable? Who wrote the talking points?
Why do your elected officials that supposedly represent their constituents simply act like puppets and repeat the same clearly provided talking points?
Whom exactly are they representing?
This brings up the word Lies which I often find myself having to speak about.
Lies require intent to deceive.
If a person repeats what they heard from the news source that they view and that news source lied that does not make the person repeating it a liar. No that person believes what their trusted source told them and thus they are speaking the truth. That doesn't make it factual. That is one of the big differences between truth and facts. Often people are called a liar or accused of lying when they are not lying. They are just wrong, and likely misinformed. There was no intent to deceive. We are all wrong from time to time. That doesn't make us a liar.
There are lies out there. Yet they begin with the person who fabricated them. The person who repeats them is not lying unless they happen to know it is false and they are saying it anyway. If they don't know it is false then they are not lying.
Why is this important?
Calling someone a liar or accusing them of lying is a big deal. If that person truly believes what they are saying then they will know they are not lying but you are accusing them of that. You will have just killed any chance at conversation and learning. You will have made them immediately on guard and defensive against you. If your goal is to not communicate, but somehow virtue signal that you are communicating Good work, you did it!
However, if your intent is to communicate then you should never be so haste to accuse someone of lying. If you have evidence they do not believe it and are attempting to deceive you then they may be lying. You simply not liking what you are hearing doesn't make the person saying it a liar.
The truth you know can only be based upon the information you have encountered, and the experiences you have had. You cannot know anything outside of that. None of us can. Our TRUTH is shaped by what we know. If we allow it we will encounter new information and have new experiences that will reshape our personal view of truth.
The idea of a fact is that it is something that is not based upon opinion. It is objective. "If I drop this apple while standing next to this tree it will fall." That is a fact. If I state that then I will be telling the truth. If I state it will not fall and I know that it will then that will be a lie. If on the other hand I am reading that while standing in zero G on at space station next to an apple tree the TRUTH will be very different. I am intentionally reaching for an exception. Not so I can make the original statement false. It is more to show that TRUTH is subjective and information known, and experiences matter. The only thing that will make it a lie is the intent to deceive.
Now my title I did a little word play that I had fun thinking about this morning as I was thinking about writing this.
"Truth lies in free speech". The only way we can insure truth is to be able to speak freely. Restrictions on speech are obfuscation. They are attempts to hide, or perhaps deceive. They are attempts to keep us ignorant. Even with good intentions this is still the case.
"Truth, Lies, & Free Speech" - I knew I'd be talking about these three things and I thought the way the word play of "Truth lies in free speech" worked out with these three subjects was mentally entertaining at the time. Who knows I may look at this later and think "That was pretty cheesy!"
Anyway, I haven't written on hive in awhile but I felt like writing this.
I used GROK to generate the images. It is allowed to be used for commercial per their licensing or anything like this so there is no image copyright.
There is a lot more to go along with this. Smith Mundt Act. The fact restrictions on use of propaganda against U.S. Citizens were removed as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA2012). The implications of that are pretty huge. The country, journalism, and activism changed a lot after those restrictions on propaganda were removed.
What is propaganda?
To me it is essentially a coordinated campaign to deceive.
It is when multiple news agencies that are supposedly independent all come out with the exact same talking point. Often completely fabricated, or worded in ways to mislead, manipulate, and incite.
It is when multiple politicians all come out at the same time speaking the exact word for word talking points.
It is when a lie has no consequence as long as it comes from more than one source at a time.
PROPAGANDA 101: Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth in the minds of the people.
PROPAGANDA 102: Accuse your enemies of that which you are guilty.