Time to end the internet as we know it
This legal change will cause some pain, revise the way journalism operates and eliminate much of the crazy, vindictive garbage on social media sites
The Supreme Court stopped in the name of sanity and democracy the state of Texas lawsuit against Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia, which was fueled by multiple false internet statements.
The quality of the lawyering involved by Texas was embarrassing and the Supreme Court should have, and did, dismiss it for lack of standing to sue, lack of justiciable issues and just plain foolishness.
So why then did 126 members of Congress, 18 state Attorney Generals including Tennessee, and thousands of Trump supporters voice their support so loudly? Saying there is a serious IQ deficiency for those public officials is just too easy. Instead the real problem is the internet.
Millions of people believe everything they read and see on the internet. Think of all the garbage and gossip that Facebook, Twitter and other social media promote every day. Millions read it and believe it.
What can we do about this death grip that internet garbage has on the beliefs and attitudes of our voters and Americans? Any policy for censorship triggers numerous other problems. Three different proposals could make a difference in the future.
Some conscience questions
First, maybe we should require social media sites, news agencies, political groups, reporters, publishers, and elected officials to post prominently some obvious questions like “Before you believe everything you read or see on the internet, ask yourself the following”:
1 Who is the source, and do they have any conflicted interests?
2 Where, how, when did they learn this?
3 Are they an expert in this matter – meaning credentials or relevant experience?
4 Are they providing enough specific details that you can search and verify (or disprove) their details?
Second, require all the internet media and publishers to answer the above questions when they tweet, post, publish, etc.
Repeal ‘actual malice’ standard
Third, change the law by limiting the application of New York Times v. Sullivan, Butts v. Curtis Publishing, etc.
These Supreme Court cases hold that news organizations and publishers cannot be sued for making false statements about public officials, public persons and public events unless the injured person can prove “actual malice,” an almost impossible standard to meet in most cases.
Therefore, Fox News, Twitter, Facebook and some news agencies I like can get away with negligent or intentional falsehoods and misleading information.
Change the law so that the Sullivan rule applies only to government officials – the original ruling – and does not apply to public persons and public events. Then, repeal the legal immunity against lawsuits for websites and internet platforms that Congress created in Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The net effect of this legal change will be Twitter, Facebook, newspapers, journalists, authors and politicians will have to be more careful what they say and write when talking about anyone who is not a public official.
Half of Twitter would be gone tomorrow
This legal and constitutional change will cause some pain, revise the way journalism operates, and will eliminate much of the crazy, vindictive and evil garbage we have to suffer now on the internet. Half of Twitter would be gone tomorrow. Not bad if that’s the only result.
It would also alter the political calculus for newcomers, who are not yet public officials, when they run against incumbents by ending or at least limiting the use by incumbents of false and misleading attack ads. Maybe it would even increase the respect of the public for news.