LibriumArcana.Games

Washington Post

[quote]Why do we lie? Let Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco, count the ways.

“We lie to protect our privacy (‘No, I don’t live around here’); to avoid hurt feelings (‘Friday is my study night’); to make others feel better (‘Gee, you’ve gotten skinny’); to avoid recriminations (‘I only lost $10 at poker’),â€

Because just as it is not illegal for me to get drunk and claim that I was the starting pitcher of game 1 of the 1995 World Series, it should not be illegal for me to get drunk and claim that I won sixteen purple hearts, the Medal of Honor, and the Iron Cross with Diamonds in the Franco-Prussian War.

I am absolutely on the side of Judge Kozinski in this matter. It is not up to Congress to decide what forms of speech have social utility, nor to seek out and punish people for saying things. We make exceptions for cases of manifest public harm, the famous "Fire in a crowded theater" example, or advocating the assassination of public officials. But my claiming to be a war hero neither endangers the lives of the President nor our soldiers nor you nor anyone else.

Telling a lie is not fraud. Nor is it illegal. Nor should it be made illegal, no matter how many people it offends or hurts the feelings of. My claims that there is no God and that Islam and Christianity are hollow lies are both unprovable and offensive to quite a few people. Shall we make them illegal as well? Shall we prosecute everyone who makes the (completely untrue) claim that Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or George Bush is a Nazi? Or the ones who make the (equally untrue) claims that Obama is a Muslim and Socialist?

I am sorry if someone pretending to be a war hero offends you, and I agree that it makes one a giant douchebag, but it is not up to you to decide if it has political value or not, nor is it up to me. Being a douchebag is not a prosecutable offense. And my right to say whatever I want, even if it's bullshit, is not conditional on your temper.

There's a difference between stating an unprovable opinion and lying about a verifiable and objective fact, though. Especially if the lie grants advantages in, for instance, politics (as was the case here, apparently) and in influencing public decision making.


PS: It's interesting to see how it's OK to lie about your credentials like that, but obscenity isn't protected.

Obama being or not being a Muslim, or Bush a Nazi are verifiable and objective facts. In the former case, the "fact" is often brought up as a straight lie, while in the latter case, it is used as (stupid) hyperbole. In neither case am I interested in Congress or anyone else getting it into their heads that it is illegal to say such things, nor to try and splice out anyone's intentions.

I can tell all manner of lies that would potentially benefit my political career. Banning all of them would excise a large section of public comment from existence because someone "could" benefit from speaking in such a way. It has and would have a chilling effect on free speech in general. I do not accept that there is a sufficient compelling interest to arrest someone for talking in a manner we dislike.

I didn't advocate banning all kinds of lies, I was just pointing out that there are differences in degree between them.

As for politics, it seems to me that presenting yourself as something (such as a war hero) which you're not and gaining votes based on it is rather like false advertising, or a betrayal of professional confidence. While the voters are not defrauded of dollars, they're certainly out of a vote. Rinse and repeat for various kinds of false promises and statements made by politicians to get voted only to serve special interests afterward. After all, a politician is supposed to be your agent, of sorts.

I don't know that making it outright illegal is the way to go though.

The thing is, that's no different than a whole bunch of other kinds of lies that a politician can tell. They can claim to be credentialed by all manner of academic institutions, or endorsed by celebrities, famous people, or newspapers. They can make up complete fabrications about their opponents, claim to be religiously observant when they are not, or (most common of all) make campaign promises that they don't then live up to. All of those lies defraud the voter of their vote in the same way that the example above does. So what makes claiming to be a war hero any different than the above activities?

Besides, most people who claim to be war veterans are not elected politicians. Yes, there are political types who've made that claim fraudulently, but the nice bit about military decorations is that these things can be verified without too much trouble, and the fraud exposed. Most people who lie about being a war hero are not in politics, indeed I'd imagine most aren't in any position of power at all. It is those people that this law would fall upon, and while I find them liars and despicable, I would not have them arrested for saying things, any more than I would have myself arrested for any of the lies I've told over the years.

This is not a precedent we want to set in any regard.

I... actually agree with General Havoc entirely. Unless you are fraudulently claiming these decorations for the purposes of obtaining public benefits or some material gain I don't see why it should be exempt from free speech laws.

Same. The speech is protected. Once you go down the slippery slope of legislating which lies are permitted, you open the door for any lie to be banned, and sometimes lies are necessary. Unless there is objective verifiable harm, such as saying that a particular substance is perfectly safe when it isn't and you know better, yelling fire in a crowded theater, or using a like to defraud, there must be no ability to prosecute.

Even if the person doing the lying is a giant douche.

So... I'm in a political debate wherein Comrade Tortoise and Derek Thunder are in agreement with me?

...

What just happened?

General Havoc wrote:So... I'm in a political debate wherein Comrade Tortoise and Derek Thunder are in agreement with me?

...

What just happened?

Between that and the impending release of Duke Nukem Forever I'm thinking Ragnarok.

I wouldn't mind. Dying in battle at least gets me the best afterlife.

General Havoc wrote:So... I'm in a political debate wherein Comrade Tortoise and Derek Thunder are in agreement with me?

...

What just happened?

It isn't really that much of a debate - notice that I said that I didn't know that making it outright illegal is the way to go.

I'm not sure how it would be best to hold people accountable to their claims of fact during elections, but as it is, they do get away with a lot of lying and I do think that that is damaging to society (if nothing else, it causes people to become cynical and alienated form the whole election process).

Technically, politicians making campaign promises they later don't keep is only lying if they already knew they wouldn't make good on them. Granted, a lot of the time that's probably the case anyway, but it's at least theoretically possible for a politician to make a campaign promise that he truly intended to implement only to later find himself impossible to follow trough on.

Batman wrote:Technically, politicians making campaign promises they later don't keep is only lying if they already knew they wouldn't make good on them. Granted, a lot of the time that's probably the case anyway, but it's at least theoretically possible for a politician to make a campaign promise that he truly intended to implement only to later find himself impossible to follow trough on.

Sure it is, though failed promises are a bit different from cases like this one.