Saturday, July 05, 2014
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/is_there_a_first_amendment_rig.html#incart_river
My friend David Schultz has done something very interesting in this editorial.
On the surface, it is a naive argument that lying is bad and therefore the government should prohibit politicians from lying.
But let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
The editorial is a lie, a useful lie, because it makes us think through the argument step by step, reading critically, spotting the internal contradictions, a form of argument logicians use to prove a theorem by assuming its opposite. As hints along the way there are many sub-lies. If I find time I may list ten examples.
I wonder if his editor was aware of the deep game Professor Shultz is playing here.
1. Lying is wrong; even children know it.
Children imitate adults, and in cultures where adults lie, children lie.
2. deceivers lie to make themselves an exception to a rule that they expect everyone else to follow.
That may have been true in Kant's day, but today everyone lies, and everyone is alert to the possibility that what is said may be a lie.
3. If trust did not exist, then business would never exist. Trust is earned, and is built up over time. Contracts would be meaningless, promises futile. A well drawn contract has its own enforcement clauses, so that's it's cheaper to carry out the contract than to violate it. That's one of the key challenges in drafting contracts.
4. Courts rely on all parties playing fairly and not lying. My courtroom experience is limited, but my experience has been that witnesses lie routinely. Lying is too deeply ingrained in our culture to set it aside for court.
5. Ethically there should be no debate that lying is wrong in politics. That's the goal of censorship, to prevent debate.
6. In its 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission decision, it ruled that Ohio had a legitimate interest in preventing fraud and libel in campaigns where false statements might have "serious adverse consequences."
That was not the ruling of McIntyre, just dicta.
7. They rely upon political actors to tell them the truth so that they can make informed decisions. Lying prevents that. Lying does not prevent the truth from being spoken. Laws against lying do.
8. Without any limits, there are no real sanctions against lying. Reputation capital.
9. Finally, prohibiting lying actually enhances robust debate and democracy. Because election commissions are omniscient and onmibenevolent, no doubt.
10. Making it clear that the First Amendment does not protect political lies is one way to strengthen democracy and encourage better political behavior.
My friend David Schultz has done something very interesting in this editorial.
On the surface, it is a naive argument that lying is bad and therefore the government should prohibit politicians from lying.
But let's give him the benefit of the doubt.
The editorial is a lie, a useful lie, because it makes us think through the argument step by step, reading critically, spotting the internal contradictions, a form of argument logicians use to prove a theorem by assuming its opposite. As hints along the way there are many sub-lies. If I find time I may list ten examples.
I wonder if his editor was aware of the deep game Professor Shultz is playing here.
1. Lying is wrong; even children know it.
Children imitate adults, and in cultures where adults lie, children lie.
2. deceivers lie to make themselves an exception to a rule that they expect everyone else to follow.
That may have been true in Kant's day, but today everyone lies, and everyone is alert to the possibility that what is said may be a lie.
3. If trust did not exist, then business would never exist. Trust is earned, and is built up over time. Contracts would be meaningless, promises futile. A well drawn contract has its own enforcement clauses, so that's it's cheaper to carry out the contract than to violate it. That's one of the key challenges in drafting contracts.
4. Courts rely on all parties playing fairly and not lying. My courtroom experience is limited, but my experience has been that witnesses lie routinely. Lying is too deeply ingrained in our culture to set it aside for court.
5. Ethically there should be no debate that lying is wrong in politics. That's the goal of censorship, to prevent debate.
6. In its 1995 McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission decision, it ruled that Ohio had a legitimate interest in preventing fraud and libel in campaigns where false statements might have "serious adverse consequences."
That was not the ruling of McIntyre, just dicta.
7. They rely upon political actors to tell them the truth so that they can make informed decisions. Lying prevents that. Lying does not prevent the truth from being spoken. Laws against lying do.
8. Without any limits, there are no real sanctions against lying. Reputation capital.
9. Finally, prohibiting lying actually enhances robust debate and democracy. Because election commissions are omniscient and onmibenevolent, no doubt.
10. Making it clear that the First Amendment does not protect political lies is one way to strengthen democracy and encourage better political behavior.
Comments:
Post a Comment
