Posted on 10/19/2017 5:49:01 AM PDT by markomalley
Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined "disinformation," and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing "fake news" from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.
In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.
She would include "fake news," not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it's never defined other than the Democrat's description of "disinformation." And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.
She would also use regulation to "improve voter competence," according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.' Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation. The paper was co-written by Abby K. Wood, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, and Irina Dykhne, a student at USC Gould School of Law.
The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left's effort to regulate political talk they don't like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.
Lee Goodman told Secrets, "Ann's proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the NewYorkTimes.com."
He was especially critical of the undefined nature of "disinformation" to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn't like.
In their proposal, the trio wrote, "after a social media user clicks ‘share' on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,' defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws."
Goodman said, "A fatal flaw of Ann's proposal is that it cannot define what is, or is not, ‘disinformation' in a political message. Nevertheless, it proposes to tag threats of libel lawsuits and liability to thousands of American citizens who might want to retweet or forward a message that somebody else subjectively considers to be ‘disinformational.' I call that the big chill."
And Andrew Woodson, an elections lawyer and partner at Wiley Rein LLP added, "Any proposal built on intimidating Americans from sharing news stories on social media is headed in the wrong direction."
They also want to build a national database of all regulated political ads and discussions, a potential invasion of privacy especially for bloggers or people who comment on news and Facebook posts, Goodman warned.
"Americans should not be required to sign a national registry everytime they post a political video on YouTube," he said.
Ravel is clearly concerned about how the internet is used to influence voters and is also worried voters aren't educated enough to know they are being given bad info. She is also worried about the financial disclosure, sometimes not required if no money is involved.
"The money involved in online political advertising is more diffuse than ad buys on traditional media. Like traditional ads, some ads produced for the Internet have high production costs. Others, like memes, are free to create. Unlike television and radio ads, some online ads are placed for free. Posting an ad to one's Facebook Page, or tweeting it into a politically active social network in hopes it goes viral, costs nothing. Advertisers might pay a platform to promote the ad and place it in certain users' newsfeeds. They might also buy ‘likes,' ‘shares,' and ‘retweets' outside of the platforms, from ‘troll farms' and ‘sock puppets,' which are humans who create false profiles and boost content, or from ‘bot armies,' which are machines mimicking human behavior to boost content," the trio wrote.
Their full proposal can be seen here.
DRUDGE? Now WHO woulda thought mattie the rat scumbag would post fake anti-Trump news, fake anti-Trump polls and on and on? Dump Drudge go to thelibertydaily.com
Thanks for the new tagline.
First Amendment right to lie.
++++
Unfortunately the Big Brother Alternative to our First Amendment would be far worse than putting up with all the Fake News we are flooded with.
Maybe the Justice Department should try to put Mark Zuckerberg in jail as an unregistered foreign agent trafficking in fake news. This might prompt at least a few of the Democrats to reconsider whether they want the government to police political speech.
I think it’s less then the dinners costs that Hillary gave to the journalists of various news outlets on multiple occasions!
No. Liberty says do your own due diligence, else “news” will become only the “official” news, as Orwell warned and in time it will all be fake.
Facebook is turning into a zoo.
If they don’t like what you say they put you in “facebook jail’ for a certain number of days
Now, if they don’t like what you say there are other entities that want to prosecute you?
EFF that...
I’ve been writing to vendors that I found through Facebook ads saying “no thanks - since FB censored me, I am not going to do business with YOU”
Well, you have to consider that a video caused the Benghazi uprising! /s
The argument you are making is based on existing law, and would not apply under the new and greatly improved law.
Under this new law none of the defenses you have made would hold water.
FEC chairs don’t create law. They create regulations, but those regulations cannot override existing law.
Those are lies of omission.
In the most recently reported year, the social network generated 26.89 billion U.S. dollars in ad revenues. Advertising accounts for the vast majority of Facebook’s revenue.
$100k ???
Less than spit at FB.
So, Russia spends $100,000 on fake ads and that threw the election?
What about the $1.3 billion spent on the fake candidate?
foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political adsTip money. If we are to ban fake news, we'll have to ban Demwits. Thanks markomalley.
Wait I just got a notice from facebook that a link I posted was fake news.Good source.OK Will tell all my Friends.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.