1) If the news is contrary to current information is it fake? Facts which at the onset seem true may later on be proven fake. Will censorship, then, be applied retroactively? Or how do you un-censor (is this going to be a neologism for this idiotic suppression of free speech) what was fake news which later on is proven to be true?
2) What if only parts of the fact and truth have been discovered, will it then be partly fake news? How will we deal with this hermaphroditic news?
3) Does every news item that is not incontrovertible, properly referenced, properly cited and transparent become false news? There will be no more exemptions nor protections for sensitive information or informants. Anonymous tips or undercover agents or tipsters must then be divulged otherwise the news is fake. Or are we to exempt some news agencies from this? Some must follow the law while others don’t?
4) What is the culpability of a journalist versus a private citizen to the creation and propagation of fake news? Journalists are mandated to give balanced, contextualized, researched and investigated news. Bloggers and private citizens are not. What punitive action will rein in errant journalists? How do we verify their reports when they cite protected sources? Are we to take their word for it despite seeing how their investigative, comprehension and writing skills have regressed to the level of morons?
Unlike bloggers and private citizens expressing their democratic right to dissent, journalists are obligated to produce facts in a clear, unbiased and ethical m,anner. That is their responsibility and right.
But mainstream media have become mafiotic. They are now the agents of destabilization through their propaganda, partisanship and obfuscation. They have reneged on their mandate and responsibility to society. For this they must be regulated and be held accountable to a higher code of ethics with harsher punitive actions.
The next time they post fake news they should not be allowed to practice news reporting until they have done penance for their blasphemous disregard for journalism.
Be a blogger. Be a creative writer.
But do not posture like you are the paragon of journalistic integrity then lie for your own personal interests.
Censorship of fake news, of hearsay, of gossip, of fiction, of free creative expression is a problematic proposition. Shall we criminalize creativity? Narrative points of view? Emotional perspective? Is faith going to be censured? How about the myths peddled by organized religion, are they exempt from continuing to share their “bible truths”? Are these not fake news? Political satires and parodies are meant to challenge societies. Do we ban works such as those by Bertolt Brecht, Simone de Beauvoir, Arthur Miller and Federico Garcia Lorca, Marcelo H. del Pilar and Jose Rizal?
Fake news is fiction. Satire and parodies can be in the form of fake news. What is so difficult to understand about that? Even the argument that the purpose of the writing disambiguates satire, parodies and even narrative fiction from fake news is just undeniably insipid and disingenuous. Try googling roman à clef.
Did Jose Rizal announce that his Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo or Isabel Allende’s The House of the Spirits are purely for entertainment?
As organized religion undermines free will, academia stifles creativity, legislation is now trying to marshal freedom of expression.
Think before you kill free speech. Legislating the censorship of fake news is to criminalize creativity.
If you enjoy reading Mindanation, help keep our site up.