Discernment

  I touched on this subject yesterday and heard some more on the news concerning that this morning. You can call it influencing, deep fakes, or outright lies but the most popular is misinformation. It is the posting of videos or other mediums that distort the truth or just outright spread a lie. The news was reporting that Governor Newsome, of California, is proposing three new bills making all of that illegal. Yes, it would be against the law to lie! Well, imagine that. His proposal would leave the telling of the truth to the government. That is exactly what it would be. The government will decide upon the truth. His bills leave that open. The government decides what is a parody, what is just making fun, and what is not. If that "fun" is aimed at your political opponent, that's illegal. It really would just be an arbitrary thing. It all depends.

  This is an attack on freedom of speech as we understand it today. The new threat being this artificial intelligence that is capable of mimicking individuals. It's true that it is getting very difficult to tell reality from fiction. That has been the objective of Hollywood for quite a while now but that's just entertainment, right? I'd suggest Hollywood has been influencing their audiences from the very beginning. Those entertainers are certainly active in influencing political debates today. How many people forget that their job, their occupation is making people believe fiction. But when they state their political position that is simply exercising their freedom of speech. That is what we are supposed to believe, take as the gospel. To even suggest otherwise is unamerican. And now Newsome is introducing legislation that would leave that assessment up to the government. This is true, this isn't true. Might even create a whole new Secretary of Truth office. A cabinet position! 

  This has been brought to the forefront as a result of videos being shown on social media sites. There are those that are parodies and those that are deep fakes. How can you tell the difference? The same way you can tell the difference when someone says to you, trust me, or the ever popular that isn't what I meant. You have to discern the truth for yourself. To discern is to judge well. Oh, but we are told not to judge. This proposal leaves all the judgement up to the government. Sounds like a political system we hear a lot about, one called socialism. The government decides what is right, what is wrong, what you can and can not have, do or say. But, it is always for your own good. The government is taking care of you.

  Yes, the government has placed some restrictions of free speech. We all know you can't holler fire in a crowded theater. You can't use your free speech to create an immediate danger to the public. It's a rather fine line but one that most understand well enough. For the most part however if someone is telling lies about you, spreading false information or disparaging you in some fashion your recourse is the court. Defamation of character has to proven to have caused damages. Those damages are almost always financial in nature. Remember Kathy Griffin? That was free speech that effectively ended her career. It wasn't the government though, it was the discernment of the people. The notion that the government can make a law to define the truth is ridiculous. 

  One of those laws The law makes it illegal to create and publish false materials related to elections 120 days before Election Day and 60 days thereafter. It also allows courts to stop the distribution of the materials, and violators could face civil penalties. The law exempts parody and satire. And yes, the government will decide what is or isn't parody or satire. Discernment is influenced by what? What is best for the individual is the short answer. If you are making fun of my Mother, that's false, if it your Mother, it's just funny. That's how that works. Expecting integrity from government? Well, use your own judgement on that.