Forum rule against lying?

[Len Colby]

One of the basic rules of this forum is that “The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum” this has been interpreted as including not only other variants of the word (lie, lied, lies) but their synonyms as well. However there is no restriction on lying other than being advised that “Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings”.

So if we can’t call each other liars shouldn’t we not be allowed to lie? I think lying should be forbidden and if the moderators determine a member posted INTENTIONALLY false information they should be subject to the same penalties as those who violate other rules.

[Greg Burnham]

The determination of what is false and what is truth in a post is a task rightly the responsibility of the members themselves. Allowing an authority to make such a determination is a slippery slope, IMO. There exist black & white areas--as well as, areas containing all shades of gray. It is difficult to determine what is true or false, but even more difficult is it to determine the INTENT of the member who may have posted something less than truthful. One man's truth may, in fact, exist in another man's "sphere of denial". For the first man, it is truth, for the other it is a "lie" -- quite subjective.

[Tony Frank]

When a poster says, "Yes, there should be a forum rule against lying," how do we know that the poster is not lying about what they believe?

Conversely, when a poster says, "No, there should not be a forum rule against lying," how do we know that the poster is not lying about what they believe?

Should we believe anyone who says there should be no forum rules against lying?

And someone who lies would naturally lie and say that they believe there should be a forum rule against lying.

I exposed massive KGB infiltration of the CIA in 1984 and the KGB officers admitted that they were behind JFK's assassination, but I do not expect anyone to simply take my word for it, which is why I have written a book with 1500 endnotes that mostly cite government documents.

Most JFK researchers would, of course, say that I am lying.

[Pat Speer]

One of the basic rules of this forum is that “The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum” this has been interpreted as including not only other variants of the word (lie, lied, lies) but their synonyms as well. However there is no restriction on lying other than being advised that “Members should take care over the accuracy of their postings”.

So if we can’t call each other liars shouldn’t we not be allowed to lie? I think lying should be forbidden and if the moderators determine a member posted INTENTIONALLY false information they should be subject to the same penalties as those who violate other rules.

It's just a slippery slope, Len. While I see where you're coming from, I just don't see how it could be properly enforced.

[Evan Burton]

Yep. How would you show intent?

[Guest Tom Scully]

Yep. How would you show intent?

Uhhhh.... Evan??? So simple, three precogs and a decider are all any reasonable person would ever want to implement Len's proposal. We Yanks are leaving it all up to a former constitutional law professor, our hopey, changey, president, himself!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/

May 21, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON NATIONAL SECURITY

...I know that creating such a system poses unique challenges. And other countries have grappled with this question; now, so must we. But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for the remaining Guantanamo detainees that cannot be transferred. Our goal is not to avoid a legitimate legal framework. In our constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act...

http://www.propublica.org/article/white-house-drafts-executive-order-for-indefinite-detention

White House Drafts Executive Order for Indefinite Detention

by Dafna Linzer

ProPublica, Dec. 21, 2010, 6:11 p.m.

...The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year....

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial....

Edited December 24, 2010 by Tom Scully

[Len Colby]

I know each report of a supposed lie would be a thorny question for the moderators but courts frequently determine not only if a person made erroneous claims but whether or not it was intentional (in libel, slander and perjury cases). The system could work like this:

1) a member who felt another had lied could file report, just as they would for any other rule violation, and spell out not only why they think the supposed offender’s information was false by why they must have known it was incorrect.

2) The mods would then, if they thought it necessary contact the ‘accused’

3) As with other supposed offences the mods would then vote, it a majority determined that the member had indeed lied they would then decide what punishment should be imposed.

[Stephen Roy]

I think it's a bad idea, along the lines expressed by Greg Burnham. I'm for increasing the flow, not limiting it. Let the reader beware.