Who gets to decide what's misinformation and what's not?

#13 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

That's actually a great question.

My full answer would not fit here.

But basically I think that trust and transparency play a great role.

Also whether the source is apolitical, unbiased, and acts in an independent manner and who also fully discloses their methodology and their sources equally and who allows independent audits by independent regulatory authorities or other competent organizations.

Now ... Question for you ...

Do you think that an organization that has been successfully sued for nearly a billion dollars for spreading misinformation and who has never apologized for spreading that misinformation to the public (and that actually caused harm to that public) should ever be trusted again in the future to ever tell the truth?

Also. Who do YOU think gets to decide what misinformation is and how?

Walz is wrong. We do have a broad guarantee of free speech under the U.S. Constitution, and that includes misinformation and hate speech. Walz probably missed the irony, but his misinformation on free expression is protected speech.

Actually DingDong is wrong (again). And apparently does not understand that constitutional amendments like free speech can be limited and already are.

The following examples in bold have all been adjudicated at one time or another by the Supreme Court.

The First Amendment protects the right to speak, write, and share ideas without government punishment. However, the government can limit speech in certain circumstances, including:

Incitement
Speech that is intended to incite people to break the law, such as committing violence, is not protected by the First Amendment. For example, speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building would be considered incitement.

Other categories of speech
The government can also restrict speech that includes defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.

Public concern
The government can apply Pickering's balancing test to regulate speech that relates to a matter of public concern. This test balances the government's interests in efficiency, workplace harmony, and employee performance against the employee's First Amendment rights.

National security
The Supreme Court has recognized the government's interest in keeping some information secret, such as wartime troop deployments. However, the court has never upheld an injunction against speech on national security grounds, and the amount of speech that can be curtailed is very limited.

In addition, laws that limit speech must be content neutral, meaning they don't target a particular viewpoint or means of expression. If a law lacks content neutrality, it may violate other constitutional principles, such as the equal protection clause.