[DoubleDerper]

"There is a fire in the theater" when there isn't one creates a chaotic stampede. People die.

The theater is the political culture war. Millions of human lives will die in the chase for politically charged click bait.

In no sane world should this not be punished severely.

[rayiner]

Centrally planned governments with ministries of truth cost nearly 100 million lives in the 20th century. People die when the government decides what’s the truth.

[tootie]

You're describing what happens without checks and balances. An independent judiciary routinely determines what is and isn't true. It is arguably one of the most fundamental functions of government to determine agreed upon truth.

[cauch]

People dies when politicians lie. People dies when politicians decide what's the truth.

What is proposed here is that the truth is decided on a judicial trial based on facts and proofs.

If you think it will not work because the politicians control the judicial system, then this new law is 100% harmless, because they can already very easily arrest their opponent by just saying "they killed an old lady, let's have a trial to see if they are a murderer".

[pessimizer]

It is entirely legal to shout fire in a crowded theater, and the case in which that was mentioned positively was one that jailed people for speaking against the WWI draft.

It is not, however, legal to lie when you've sworn in court to not lie, whether or not people get hurt. The rationale for making deliberate lying illegal for politicians is because they're your sworn representatives in government, or vying to be, not because it hurts people. Any number of legal things you can do will result in claims of hurt from other people.

[leereeves]

I think the key question is: would you support this if it was going to be established by your political opponents, whoever they are.

[slibhb]

> The theater is the political culture war. Millions of human lives will die in the chase for politically charged click bait.

"The culture war will result in millions of human deaths" is one hell of a prediction.

It's the culture war because it's not a real war! Casualties from people arguing on the internet are very rare.

[thegrimmest]

You can live in a free society, or you can live in a society with a ministry of truth. All human organizations are susceptible to corruption.

> this not be punished severely

Punished by whom? Under what authority? Which comes to power how? Until these questions can be answered, there's no point in saying what "should be".

[cauch]

Punished by the same people who punishes all the other infractions.

The same way doctors are punished if they are abusing their patients, or drug dealers who are selling drugs, or rioters that burn cars, or ...

No one is going to build a brand new parallel tribunal to just process the infractions on this law, and it will never fly as it is a clear violation of power separation.

If now you are saying that the current judicial system is controlled by the politicians in power, then this law is harmless: they can already arrest their opponent by just saying "they killed an old lady, let's have a trial to see if they are a murderer"

[willcipriano]

How "truth" works today:

"I see homeless people every day on the way to work, I'm having trouble making ends meet, the economy sucks."

"Fact Check: False, The economy is fine, take a look at NVIDA shares!"

[rootusrootus]

Two anecdotes followed by an opinion, responded to with another opinion and anecdote. There is not any meaningful argument about 'truth' going on there.

[Towaway69]

Is it humane to have homeless people in a society that is financially booming?

Lying is apparently a trait that differentiates us from other animals. Humanity is another.

[slibhb]

How many homeless people you see on the way to work is a worse measurement of the economy than the stock market.