Is gossiping harmful enough to warrant a ban?

[CFLarsen]

Colombian town tells gossipers to shut up or else (http://today.reuters.co.uk/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2005-05-17T172032Z_01_SPI762281_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-COLOMBIA-GOSSIP.XML)

BOGOTA, Colombia (Reuters) - Bad-mouthing your neighbours can land you in jail in one Colombian town after the mayor banned gossip.

Ignacio Jimenez, mayor of Icononzo, southwest of Bogota, told El Tiempo newspaper he decreed the ban because loose tongues can cost lives in Colombia, which is in the grips of a guerrilla war involving Marxist rebels and far-right paramilitary outlaws.

Justifying his decree, the mayor said at least eight people were in the local prison accused "purely by gossip" of being members of the outlawed, Marxist-inspired Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.

People could also be killed just due to rumors they sympathize with one of the illegal armed groups, he said.

He and other backers of the decree, which went into effect this week, say people need to think hard before making unfounded allegations. Failing to do so in Icononzo can now result in fines or up to four year behind bars.

Tricky question, isn't it?

Sure, freedom of speech is important - nay, vital. But just where do we draw the line? Can an open society accept a long string of lies and falsehoods, if that means that people are deceived?

Can we not demand of those who claim to tell us the truth that they actually are telling us the truth? Isn't that what being a skeptic is all about: Seeking reality instead of what we think is reality?

I'm not saying that I agree with the mayor.

But he does have a point.

Doesn't he?

The line between freedom of speech and spreading of lies. Anybody want to draw it?

[jmercer]

Claus,

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to deceive. :)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The line between freedom of speech and spreading of lies. Anybody want to draw it?

Well, offhand, I'd say that the line is drawn at "the truth."

Under English common law (and most other reasonable systems), "freedom of speech" doesn't extend to defaming someone's character by spreading lies. That's called "slander" and it can be a criminal offense all by itself.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jmercer
Claus,

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to deceive. :)

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, offhand, I'd say that the line is drawn at "the truth."

Under English common law (and most other reasonable systems), "freedom of speech" doesn't extend to defaming someone's character by spreading lies. That's called "slander" and it can be a criminal offense all by itself.

So, you would ban lies?

Demonstrable falsehoods?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you would ban lies?
A goal that is hard to achieve, but justified to strive towards.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thomas
A goal that is hard to achieve, but justified to strive against.

That doesn't answer the question.... :)

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you would ban lies?

Demonstrable falsehoods?

If they cause demonstrable harm to someone, then they are already banned by law.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you would ban lies?

Demonstrable falsehoods?

Intentional falsehoods. And I wouldn't ban them - I'd make them actionable in a court of law. The difference is that the perpetrator couldn't hide behind a "freedom of speech" defense for lying.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That doesn't answer the question.... :)
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Thomas
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Why are you asking God that?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Darat
Why are you asking God that?
I would like to hear the truth from God for a change.

[El Greco]

C'mon, it's not realistic to return to pre-TV era...

[Jas]

Originally posted by jmercer
Intentional falsehoods. And I wouldn't ban them - I'd make them actionable in a court of law. The difference is that the perpetrator couldn't hide behind a "freedom of speech" defense for lying.

In full agreement with you on that one.

I'm well familiar with the negative aspects of gossip. The town I'm originally from had a huge 'gossip' problem, of the 'fundy' variety. So much so, that it ended up being
international news. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_marte.htm) The article doesn't explain quite the full extent that gossip played in the situation, but a lot of this could have been avoided if people had minded their own business (and had anything better to do with their time!)

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by jmercer
Intentional falsehoods. And I wouldn't ban them - I'd make them actionable in a court of law. The difference is that the perpetrator couldn't hide behind a "freedom of speech" defense for lying.

You mean like the "Newsweek" story on the "desecration" of the Koran?
Got people kilt, that one did. An honorable editor would shoot himself...

[jmercer]

Originally posted by rwguinn
You mean like the "Newsweek" story on the "desecration" of the Koran?
Got people kilt, that one did. An honorable editor would shoot himself...

Newsweek's publishing practices are apparently abysmal, but there has to be proof that the editor or author knew that the story was a lie before it went to press.

Stupidity reigns supreme in more than one way, at times... but yeah. Someone at that magazine should be shot. (Coming from a publishing background, this kind of crap makes my blood boil... utterly irresponsible. Worse than what the NY Times and Dan Rather did.)

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Intentional falsehoods. And I wouldn't ban them - I'd make them actionable in a court of law. The difference is that the perpetrator couldn't hide behind a "freedom of speech" defense for lying.

jmercer is a filthy communist!

So I would go to jail for that? What about satire? What about fiction? What if I was mistaken? Hard to hide behind the first ammendment when you're throwing it in the paper shredder.

You've also thrown the scientific method. Think about it. If I state my hypothesis and test it, and I'm proven WRONG, I could be dragged to court in your crazy world.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Newsweek's publishing practices are apparently abysmal, but there has to be proof that the editor or author knew that the story was a lie before it went to press.

Stupidity reigns supreme in more than one way, at times... but yeah. Someone at that magazine should be shot. (Coming from a publishing background, this kind of crap makes my blood boil... utterly irresponsible. Worse than what the NY Times and Dan Rather did.)

Under whose definition of "lie?" Do we know any of these recent stories were false? In both cases, the publication backed down because their sources proved unreliable, but does anyone know that either the Koran or National Guard stories were actually "lies"?

No.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
jmercer is a filthy communist!

So I would go to jail for that? What about satire? What about fiction? What if I was mistaken? Hard to hide behind the first ammendment when you're throwing it in the paper shredder.

You've also thrown the scientific method. Think about it. If I state my hypothesis and test it, and I'm proven WRONG, I could be dragged to court in your crazy world.
A hypothesis is not the truth, it's a hypothesis. I agree with the rest of your post.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Thomas
A hypothesis is not the truth, it's a hypothesis. I agree with the rest of your post.

You're right. I concede. There's still a point in what I said, but I didn't explain what I meant very well.

Researchers (in government, academics, AND industry) write lots of proposals. It's a staple of the job. These proposals are essentially the "hypothesis" and the "methods" you will use to test it. But it's not cut and dry as to what is "hypothesis" and what is "method." There can be experimental techniques in your method that might not work when you actually implement them.

If my methods don't work exactly as laid out... I've told a lie on the record. Granted, my lie appears unintentional, but who can say that for sure?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
You're right. I concede. There's still a point in what I said, but I didn't explain what I meant very well.

Researchers (in government, academics, AND industry) write lots of proposals. It's a staple of the job. These proposals are essentially the "hypothesis" and the "methods" you will use to test it. But it's not cut and dry as to what is "hypothesis" and what is "method." There can be experimental techniques in your method that might not work when you actually implement them.

If my methods don't work exactly as laid out... I've told a lie on the record. Granted, my lie appears unintentional, but who can say that for sure?
That's all a little bit exotic, but ok. There's always a problem in trying to legislate your way out of everything.

[Pup]

As others have suggested, in the U.S. and countries where the laws are similar, we've already pretty well hashed out what's legally considered slander/libel, vs. what's satire, fiction, opinion, said in jest, etc.

In the U.S., I believe that stating to at least one third party, in a serious believable manner, that someone is a criminal when you know they're not, is slander per se, and a successful civil suit can be brought against you without proving damages. Even if you don't know for certain that the statement is untrue, there are some gray areas about how recklessly you can make the claim, depending on your status. (A newspaper reporter is expected to do more investigation than an individual, for instance.)

The main difference is that slander and libel are generally no longer criminal in the US at least (don't know about other countries), and the few remaining states which do still have criminal statutes don't generally prosecute. So the only remedy is to bring a civil suit, rather than to arrest and jail the defendant.

So I'm not sure what the question is. Is it about the way slander/libel are defined even in the U.S. and similar countries? Or does it hinge on the question of jail and whether slander/libel should be prosecuted as a crime? As for that question, the main difference there would seem to be the reduced cost to the plaintiff, since the state pays for legal work necessary to bring the suit, rather than the individual. Thus it would provide more protection for poor people who are falsely accused. The other difference, of course, is the potential punishment of imprisonment, rather than just payment of actual or punitive damages. That would make the prosecution of poor defendants more practical, since they'd always have something to lose, even if they had no money.

In a situation where false accusations are causing significant damages to innocent people (such as the real possibility of bodily harm), and a large number of those involved are poor, it seems reasonable to criminalize slander/libel. In the U.S., that doesn't seem to be the case, so I think civil remedies work well here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
If they cause demonstrable harm to someone, then they are already banned by law.
Who should be punished?

He who gets named as the last person telling the story, just before it reaches the press?

Or he who originates the story (he will be impossible to find)?

[Ceinwyn]

Gossip as defined in the dictionary is harmless. Gossip used politically is dangerous. Just ask the "witches" of Salem, Massachusetts.

Claus, you asked this question:

"Can an open society accept a long string of lies and falsehoods, if that means that people are deceived?"

No. A people deceived means they can't decide what they should do in their best interest. It's unfair and immoral. It leads to false people and false idols.

Whatever happens, the people should know all the truth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ceinwyn
Gossip as defined in the dictionary is harmless. Gossip used politically is dangerous. Just ask the "witches" of Salem, Massachusetts.

Claus, you asked this question:

"Can an open society accept a long string of lies and falsehoods, if that means that people are deceived?"

No. A people deceived means they can't decide what they should do in their best interest. It's unfair and immoral. It leads to false people and false idols.

Whatever happens, the people should know all the truth.

So, what should be done?

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, what should be done? Well, if you hear gossip about someone, you should make an effort to see if it's true or not.

Duh.

Ok, that was facetious. Be involved. That's all I know.

[arthwollipot]

The problem is in telling the difference between false gossip and true facts. Someone tells you something about someone. If it is plausible, ("Joe went to the shop and bought a CD") then you may not consider it worth your while investigating. If, however, you know that Joe is an inveterate mp3-downloader, this may ring enough alarm bells that you might just ask Joe whether he really did buy a CD.

Someone tells you that the quiet, reserved neighbour whose curtains are always closed is actually a terrorist. Is this believable? Is it worthwhile investigating? And more to the point, are you actually going to approach your neighbour and ask?

No, legislation works best when the issues are black-and-white. Gossip is riddled with shades of gray, and some blue, pink and brown as well. I don't believe that it would be possible to legislate against gossip.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by arthwollipot
I don't believe that it would be possible to legislate against gossip.
Unless, we all were under 24/7 surveillance from a central database I hereby name: FactControl. Everytime someone says anything which is not consistent with the fact-archive, the offender must recieve massive doses of electric current.

They're watching us right now.

[Garrette]

To answer the original question: No.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Thomas
They're watching us right now.

Nope. Darat's not even in this thread. :D

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
jmercer is a filthy communist!

So I would go to jail for that? What about satire? What about fiction? What if I was mistaken? Hard to hide behind the first ammendment when you're throwing it in the paper shredder.

You've also thrown the scientific method. Think about it. If I state my hypothesis and test it, and I'm proven WRONG, I could be dragged to court in your crazy world.

Regarding the communist accusation - you may or may not end up being penalized for such a statement. That would be up to the courts, who would have to determine if you knew it was a false statement at the time you made it. What you would not be able to do is to use "Freedom of speech" as a defense for your actions in that courtroom. :)

Regarding the scientific hypothesis - did you miss the part where I said "intentional"?

By definition, a hypothesis is speculative, and therefore isn't being presented as a statement of fact. In your other example, if you had said "I believe that jmercer may be a filthy communist!" or "I am of the opinion that jmercer is a filthy communist!", you would be protected by Freedom of Speech. (Because with those wording changes you're not stating it as a fact - instead, you're citing it as either a possibility or a personal opinion.)

(Edited to add the following after re-reading delphi's post)

Regarding fiction, the answer is simple. Fiction needs to be identified as such - which is why disclaimers such as "This is a work of fiction, and any resemblance to persons..." is commonly used. When fiction is identified as such, it's covered by Freedom of Speech. (Unless parts of the fiction are represented as real facts in support of the story - in which case knowingly presenting false information as a fact would not be protected by Free Speech.)

Satire is less clear because being satirical doesn't necessarily ensure that the content is taken as opinion. Satire can be soley opinion... or can be an opinion based on facts presented during the satire. If the latter, the individidual offering the satire must believe that the "facts" are correct.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Under whose definition of "lie?" Do we know any of these recent stories were false? In both cases, the publication backed down because their sources proved unreliable, but does anyone know that either the Koran or National Guard stories were actually "lies"?

No.

It doesn't matter, because the "lie" is in the representation of the information.

The article mispresented the alleged action of flushing the Koran as a "fact" instead of an "unverified report". This constitutes a lie on the part of the author (at a minimum), and - if the editors knew it was from a single, unverified source - by NewsWeek as well.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, what should be done?

In my opinion, there should be a mechanism that punishes gossipers directly proportional to the damage done by the gossip. As to what the punishments should be... that's open to debate. :)

[Thomas]

Originally posted by jmercer
As to what the punishments should be... that's open to debate. :)
http://www.progression-labs.com/images/jmercer.jpg

[songstress]

jmercer,

As someone who has been on the receiving end of 'harmless' gossip, I'd go right along with that. What I have noticed about gossipers, is that they are guilty of the very thing that they are accusing others of.

War gossip - I've seen posters in the Imperial War Museum in London, which warn that 'Loose Tongues Cost Lives.' The inference is that gossip might be overheard by Nazi spies and sympathisers. In the case that Claus cites, I'd agree with the mayor. My mum and late dad, who both lived through the War, told me that these types of messages were all over the place - posters, wireless radio, newspapers, etc.

Patsy.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Thomas
http://www.progression-labs.com/images/jmercer.jpg

ROFLMAO!!!!

[jmercer]

Originally posted by songstress
jmercer,

As someone who has been on the receiving end of 'harmless' gossip, I'd go right along with that. What I have noticed about gossipers, is that they are guilty of the very thing that they are accusing others of.

War gossip - I've seen posters in the Imperial War Museum in London, which warn that 'Loose Tongues Cost Lives.' The inference is that gossip might be overheard by Nazi spies and sympathisers. In the case that Claus cites, I'd agree with the mayor. My mum and late dad, who both lived through the War, told me that these types of messages were all over the place - posters, wireless radio, newspapers, etc.

Patsy.

Good post... but just so it's in perspective, being on a wartime footing is literally a special case. Most governments (and heads of state) are granted emergency powers during wartime that override individual rights, such as Freedom of Speech, access to legal counsel (in the US), etc.

[Skepiroth]

The government has one purpose-- to defend the freedoms of people from foreign and domestic threats. The government has no right to regulate free speech. (yes i am a libertarian :) )

My solution: Kill off the Marxist militants/right-wing paramilitary people. I am not talking a few tactical raids here and there. I am talking about annhilation of the groups, as in "surrender or end up dead or a POW". I'm sure the US would be willing to help out, I mean the FARC is notorious for selling coke.

There, you can solve the problem by attacking those who pose the threat, not by regulating rights.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
It doesn't matter, because the "lie" is in the representation of the information.

The article mispresented the alleged action of flushing the Koran as a "fact" instead of an "unverified report". This constitutes a lie on the part of the author (at a minimum), and - if the editors knew it was from a single, unverified source - by NewsWeek as well.

jmercer, BOTH reports cited anonymous sources. They reported the "fact" that someone in the government gave them this information, not the "fact" that the Koran was defaced or that Bush did not do his national guard duty.

Do they still go to jail?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
jmercer, BOTH reports cited anonymous sources. They reported the "fact" that someone in the government gave them this information, not the "fact" that the Koran was defaced or that Bush did not do his national guard duty.

Do they still go to jail?

Jail? When did I suggest a particular punishment? Please, point that out to me. :)

All I've said is that the right to Freedom of Speech should not be invokable to protect someone who intentionally lies. I never specificed criminal or civil prosecution. (However, it is a criminal offense in the US when you lie on the witness stand while under oath. Perjury.)

Now, if you want to get into a debate about what would constitute an appropriate punishment for liars who abuse their right to Freedom of Speech, we can start that dialogue - but it's not what we've been chatting about here. :D

And btw - they did not suggest that the Koran-flushing incident was an unverified anecdote. They simply reported it, leaving it to the reader to assume it had been researched and verified as fact.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Regarding the scientific hypothesis - did you miss the part where I said "intentional"?

Yes, but my second post on that clarifies a bit. Every time I promote a prototype or propose new research, I'm going to tell the people offering funding "If you give me $X, I will produce Y." It's almost like marketing. You're trying to capture the potential of your ideas and methods and explain them to a funding agent who has no idea what you're talking about.

I cannot always produce Y. Sometimes there are unexpected hurdles which theory doesn't predict. Sometimes I need more funding. Sometimes I have to decide to do things completely differently to best use the research money to accomplish a larger goal (usually to summarize some results for a coherent publication.) Sometimes a study starts with goal Y, but actually produces result Z.

I've worked in government labs now for over 3 years (ORNL and ANL.) This isn't a stretch. This is how the real scientific world works. There are a lot of brilliant, creative people trying to pay for lab space, research assistance, graduate students, training, lab machines. There is a need to publish results in a way that is acceptable to funding agencies and to publishers. Nobody wants to publish studies which fail to prove anything. Sometimes you look for an interesting problem your data and techniques can solve, even though your hypothesis was wrong.

Now... hypothesis are just that, right? Proposals are hypothesis, right? Or are they deliverables that I've promised? Maybe I'm lying about what I can do to get funding. I'd have to be taken to court for the judge to decide... and who knows how long that would take?

Right now, all of this is settled professionally (if you can't produce something, your name will be junk. Name/publications mean EVERYTHING in science.) Your idea would pull all of this into a courtroom. No scientist deviate even slightly from their proposal or prototype from fear of litigation. Obtaining funding already occupies most of their time. If you hear two brilliant scientists talking, MOST of the conversation will be about the politics of funding and publication. You're going to make them worry about the legalities of every sentence in their proposals and publications?

"Dr. Crick, you clearly state on page 4 of Codon--anticodon pairing: the wobble hypothesis that guanine as a base can hypothetically bond to a thymine if located in the third base position of the anticodon. This is in fact incorrect in certain organisms. Is it true you just made this up to get published?"
"No. I was mistaken!"
"Sure you were, Dr. Crick. Sure you were... you know I hear The Journal of Molecular Biology is a very prestigeous journal..."

Goodbye progress.

[jmercer]

Sorry, delphi - but if you actually promise something based on a hypothesis, then you're misleading people.

[jmercer]

Let me clarify my last post.

If you say "Give me X and I will produce Y", you are offering a verbal, legal contract. If the other party agrees, you are now bound by this contract.

Forget about "free speech". It's not even involved in this.

And a "proposal" is NOT a hypothesis. A proposal is an offer to do something. If deliverables are promised in the proposal, then you are bound to deliver them, unless you specify that delivery may not be possible.

A hypothesis is a belief to be proven or disproven - entirely different.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Jail? When did I suggest a particular punishment? Please, point that out to me. :)

*sigh* Yes. Clearly the most important part of this discussion is punishment, since you yourself can't even decide what this punishment should be. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by jmercer
And btw - they did not suggest that the Koran-flushing incident was an unverified anecdote. They simply reported it, leaving it to the reader to assume it had been researched and verified as fact.

Where do you get your facts?!

"May 9 issue - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap. (New details of sexual abuse—including an instance in which a female interrogator allegedly wiped her red-stained hand on a detainee's face, telling him it was her menstrual blood—are also in a new book to be published this week by a former Gitmo translator.)" -Original article

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/

ETA Did you know what you said to be false? Perhaps it's time for you to go to court!

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Let me clarify my last post.

If you say "Give me X and I will produce Y", you are offering a verbal, legal contract. If the other party agrees, you are now bound by this contract.

Forget about "free speech". It's not even involved in this.

And a "proposal" is NOT a hypothesis. A proposal is an offer to do something. If deliverables are promised in the proposal, then you are bound to deliver them, unless you specify that delivery may not be possible.

A hypothesis is a belief to be proven or disproven - entirely different.

Proposals ARE where scientific hypotheses are outlined in the real world of science. Believe it or not, things don't work like they did in the science fair!

There is a lot of pressure to produce proposals and publications. Facts will be wrong in both. Hypotheses will be wrong. Methods won't work. Who is to say if the author is lying or simply mistaken? There is a lot of pressure to get funding and get published. Maybe you're lying, maybe you're mistaken.

The body of science corrects these mistakes slowly. Other scientists find the mistakes and errors. If you're prone to errors or lying, science will eventually ignore you and move on. Your career will be ruined. But EVERY scientist makes mistakes. Worrying that even one mistake will bring you into a court of law is going to kill scientific progress.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
*sigh* Yes. Clearly the most important part of this discussion is punishment, since you yourself can't even decide what this punishment should be. :rolleyes:


No. The most important part of the discussion centers around the prevention of abuse of Freedom of Speech to protect intentional liars. What happens to them after that (punishment included) is irrelevant to my part of the discussion.

Originally posted by delphi_ote

Where do you get your facts?!

"May 9 issue - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. An Army spokesman confirms that 10 Gitmo interrogators have already been disciplined for mistreating prisoners, including one woman who took off her top, rubbed her finger through a detainee's hair and sat on the detainee's lap. (New details of sexual abuse—including an instance in which a female interrogator allegedly wiped her red-stained hand on a detainee's face, telling him it was her menstrual blood—are also in a new book to be published this week by a former Gitmo translator.)" -Original article

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/



Right from that text is where I got my facts. Allow me to show you the lie:

"May 9 issue - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet and led a detainee around with a collar and dog leash. "

NewsWeek did not have "sources" - they had a single source, and no confirmation whatsoever that the source was telling the truth about investigators confirming the infractions. However, the text clearly (and intentionally) leads the reader to believe that multiple sources reported that this was true.

Not "one source, unconfirmed" - just "sources".

I spent over 18 years in the publishing industry, with magazines, newspapers, etc... and this is lying by misrepresentation and omission.

Originally posted by delphi_ote

ETA Did you know what you said to be false? Perhaps it's time for you to go to court!

Heh... fortunately, what I said isn't false. :)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jmercer


If you say "Give me X and I will produce Y", you are offering a verbal, legal contract. If the other party agrees, you are now bound by this contract.


You know, I don't think I've ever read a research proposal that said "Give me X and I will produce Y."

I read a number that say "we expect to produce Y," or "we will investigate the possibility of producing Y," or "we expect to produce Y." But never the flat out promise that could be legally enforced as a contract.

I guess our funding agencies and experiences vary.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by new drkitten
You know, I don't think I've ever read a research proposal that said "Give me X and I will produce Y."

I read a number that say "we expect to produce Y," or "we will investigate the possibility of producing Y," or "we expect to produce Y." But never the flat out promise that could be legally enforced as a contract.

I guess our funding agencies and experiences vary.

Y being something like "research investigating the possibility of producing Q" or "research we expect will produce R."

in the end, Z (what I REALLY produce) may be "research which shows the possibility of producing Q is too hard to measure with this funding. Instead, I measured S, which furthers research toward T, which is closely related to the possibility of producing Q."

Here is an example from an NSF proposal:
"This SBIR Phase I project is to expand an existing multi-dimension interpolation software (up to 4D) developed by FANG, INC. The intellectual merits (IM) of the proposed activity are, (a) To provide a breakthrough in interpolation application; (b) To promote software development by use of Internet web technology. It is known in the interpolation field that approximation of high-dimension space is difficult to handle and quite often computationally unwieldy and intractable. Most of the available software, if not all, are restricted to or less than 5-dimension. The interpolation method proposed in this project can be extended in a straightforward manner to more than 10 or 100 dimension and far beyond. The project proposed is focused on the software development to scale up the capability of the existing software to 10-dimension and the capacity of accommodating up to 3,000 input data locations. Standard software design and coding work will be performed with the use of HTML and JavaScript languages. Software testing will be done to assure the correctness of software operation. It is anticipated that the produced software can be directly applied to, engineering design, information data mining, environmental modeling, social studies, econometrics, geostatistics, etc."
http://www.fanginc.com/rdic/soft.htm

What if HTML and JavaScript end up being the WORST way to code this thing? What if memory restrictions or hardware time only allow the interpolation method to be extended to 15 dimensions? What if there is no breakthrough in interpolation application? Who can say they didn't just say those things to get funding?

I'm trying to say that there is a lot of grey area here. It's not black and white "deliberate lie" and "hypothesis to test." Having a courtroom sort it out is absurd.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Right from that text is where I got my facts. Allow me to show you the lie:

Hmm... you missed a bit:

"May 9 issue - Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year."

The subject of that sentence is NOT "Newsweek" it is "investigators." Supposedly, the source saw a document stating this was an internal DoD invesigation. If true, the investigators would have confirmed (confirm - v. 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen...) the allegations in the FBI e-mails.

Originally posted by jmercer
NewsWeek did not have "sources" - they had a single source, and no confirmation whatsoever that the source was telling the truth about investigators confirming the infractions. However, the text clearly (and intentionally) leads the reader to believe that multiple sources reported that this was true.

Not "one source, unconfirmed" - just "sources".


We do not know if there were other sources. We only know the source that allegedly saw this document cannot back up his/her claim anymore. There may have been other sources corroborating other bits of the story, like that the source who allegedly saw the document had access to such documents, that investigations of some kind were actually taking place, etc.

To call this story a deliberate lie is a gross oversimplification. Nobody has the evidence to deterimine that.

[Thomas]

Out of context. Deleted.

[jmercer]

As I read it, here's the deliverable:

"The project proposed is focused on the software development to scale up the capability of the existing software to 10-dimension and the capacity of accommodating up to 3,000 input data locations. "

The rest - programming language, etc. - is only an issue if the "customer" requires a specific item in that area. Otherwise, you're free to say "Java" and then go with "C++", if that's what it takes to meet the project deliverable. (And even then you're protected if you thought you could use Java. :))

You would only be "lying' if you knew that it was impossible to scale up the software to meet the 10-dimensional requirement and/or the capacity to accomodate 3k input data locations.

[delphi_ote]

Aha! This IS black and white. To differentiate "lie" from "non-lie," simply ask jmercer which is which. :rolleyes:

Seriously, how can you prove if the person in question knew it was impossible or not? Maybe they were fudging when they wrote the proposal. Is that irresponsible? An intentional lie? Or just doing their best to give you an idea of what they're proposing to do?

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
We do not know if there were other sources. We only know the source that allegedly saw this document cannot back up his/her claim anymore. There may have been other sources corroborating other bits of the story, like that the source who allegedly saw the document had access to such documents, that investigations of some kind were actually taking place, etc.

To call this story a deliberate lie is a gross oversimplification. Nobody has the evidence to deterimine that.

Sorry, Delphi, but NewsWeek has already done the public mea culpa about this. They admitted on national TV that they only had one source; did not verify the story; and were completely in error for publishing it as-is. And they've also publicly apologized for their errors causing riots which resulted in the loss of life, etc.

That's from them, not from me.

I never said the story was a lie; I said - and I repeat - the lie was in the representationt that what was being presented was a fact, verified from "sources" - when it was not. It was something told to them by a single person, who did not produce a shred of evidence proving what they said was true.

Yet NewsWeek went with the story and wrote it in such a way that it appeared that they had validated the information.

Like I said, I did publishing for many, many years - and several national trade magazines and newspapers I worked for would have instantly fired any editor pulling this kind of crap. (And blackballed the writer, too.)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
Aha! This IS black and white. To differentiate "lie" from "non-lie," simply ask jmercer which is which. :rolleyes:

Seriously, how can you prove if the person in question knew it was impossible or not? Maybe they were fudging when they wrote the proposal. Is that irresponsible? An intentional lie? Or just doing their best to give you an idea of what they're proposing to do?

(sigh)

Delphi, that's why there are courts. To determine if someone was incompetent or deceitful. Anyone who deliberately "fudges" a proposal is lying, unless they specifically state that success is not guaranteed.

I'm in business, and if a vendor provides me a proposal that they "fudge" to get the job approval - and this has happened - I either refuse full payment on the agreement, or take them to court. (Depending on how severe the shortcoming is.)

This IS black and white - either you KNOW you're lying, or you don't. That's all.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
Sorry, Delphi, but NewsWeek has already done the public mea culpa about this. They admitted on national TV that they only had one source; did not verify the story; and were completely in error for publishing it as-is. And they've also publicly apologized for their errors causing riots which resulted in the loss of life, etc.

That's from them, not from me.


Again, black and white when it's really quite grey:

The item was principally reported by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek's veteran investigative reporter. "Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here," he said. "We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We're going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/15/AR2005051500605.html

"Neither Newsweek nor the Pentagon foresaw that a reference to the desecration of the Koran was going to create the kind of response that it did," said Isikoff.

"The Pentagon saw the item before it ran, and then they didn't move us off it for 11 days afterward. They were as caught off guard by the furor as we were," Isikoff was quoted as saying.

"We obviously blame ourselves for not understanding the potential ramifications," he added. The Times said Isikoff supplied the source for the article.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050517/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamo_050517145443

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible." Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7857154/site/newsweek/

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by jmercer
(sigh)

Delphi, that's why there are courts. To determine if someone was incompetent or deceitful. Anyone who deliberately "fudges" a proposal is lying, unless they specifically state that success is not guaranteed.

I'm in business, and if a vendor provides me a proposal that they "fudge" to get the job approval - and this has happened - I either refuse full payment on the agreement, or take them to court. (Depending on how severe the shortcoming is.)

This IS black and white - either you KNOW you're lying, or you don't. That's all.

But how does a court determine what is deliberate and what is unintentional? This is my point. Your proposed bill would allow research not in line with the current political climate to be dragged to court. Journalists not in line with the current political climate would be taken to court. ETA: And there's no real way to know how your statements would be judged until the court's decision was handed down (i.e. AFTER you wrote or said whatever questionable thing you said.)

THAT is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to protect. The public is supposed to be the filter for information sources. Will you trust Newsweek's Periscope articles in the future? I'll certainly look with more skepticism. Tabloits print deliberate lies all the time. Does anyone take them seriously? Should we take the writers to court?

[Thomas]

Hmm.. Regarding the gossip-hypothesis debate..

As far as I understand this language, a hypothesis can never be a lie as it is a tentative explanation of a given phenomenon. Therefore it can never be the truth or a lie.

It's true that some elements of a hypothesis could be wrong assumptions, maybe even gossip, and this is the very problem with piling assumptions-on-assumptions, and is something that a honest scientist should seek to avoid (as long as it doesn't claim the truth as a victim in the act). Advanced tango, but this is the core of this debate.
Still, a hypothesis can hold a false or inadequate assumption, but as I see it, it can never be a deliberate lie. It is meant as a possible explanation of a given phenomenon.

You're both right about your arguments, the only problem is that the core of this debate is an yet unsolved problem. The problem of piling assumptions-on-assumptions in science.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Thomas
You're both right about your arguments, the only problem is that the core of this debate is an yet unsolved problem. The problem of piling assumptions-on-assumptions in science.

Well said, Thomas. This is the exact same problem I see in the journalism sphere. The source's assumptions were piled on top of the reporters' assumptions which were piled on top of the editors' which were piled on top of the public's assumptions, which were piled on top of a lot of assumptions from other sources. Would this story have caused a riot if the rioters trusted the U.S. government in the first place? Would they have rioted if other organizations had not also told lies? Who was really the source of the "lie?" It's a very complicated tangle.

I have faith in the scientific and journalism communities. The public (not the courts or lawyers) is all over this Newsweek mistake. That is exactly what should be happening. I think these and other reporters will research their stories better in the future. Journalism will improve or cease to exist.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
But how does a court determine what is deliberate and what is unintentional? This is my point. Your proposed bill would allow research not in line with the current political climate to be dragged to court. Journalists not in line with the current political climate would be taken to court. ETA: And there's no real way to know how your statements would be judged until the court's decision was handed down (i.e. AFTER you wrote or said whatever questionable thing you said.)


Well, research not in line with the current political climate is already in a courtroom venue - stem cell research, for example. Freedom of speech is an unlikely challenge to suppress research - but moral issues in today's political climate? Oh, yeah, they'll persecute researchers over that stuff. :(

Regarding journalists - journalists have an obligation to report the truth, insofar as they know it. The moment they start speculating, it's not reporting, it's editorialism... and if they misrepresent the facts, then they're violating the public trust. So yeah - if they lie, they should be held accountable.

Originally posted by delphi_ote

THAT is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to protect. The public is supposed to be the filter for information sources. Will you trust Newsweek's Periscope articles in the future? I'll certainly look with more skepticism. Tabloits print deliberate lies all the time. Does anyone take them seriously? Should we take the writers to court?

Actually, the public isn't the filter, they're the recipient. There's been a major loss of confidence in the media for the past 2 decades precisely because the media has taken liberties with the truth - even the so-called "reputable" media, a' la Dan Rather.

The filter is supposed to be imposed at the editorial level - they're supposedly the watchdogs for accuracy and quality.

[songstress]

jmercer,

No, as far as I can see, you haven't said anything about specific punishments....oh yes, wartime is a 'special case' when it comes to freedom of speech.

I think somehow though, with all this 'political correctness' (so called) our freedoms of speech are either 1) being eroded or 2) certain nations are being made out to be 'villains.' I am reminded of the latter when it comes to American politics. All I hear on the news, is about how America lies/has lied about the Iraq war, and this latest thing about the Koran being flushed down a loo in Camp X-Ray. Doesn't anyone else ever lie? It's political correctness gone mad - America isn't the 'villain of the peace.' If it wasn't for our American friends, this world would be very, very different.

It's time someone remembered that.

Mr Bush and our Mr Blair, together with the US and UK Armed Forces have done and are, doing a sterling job.

Patsy.
P.S. I'm not picking you to pieces - I'm just letting off steam generally.

edited to include postscript.