France's President Macron Wants To Block Websites During Elections To Fight 'Fake News' (gizmodo.com)

French President Emmanuel Macron has a rather extreme approach to combat fake news: ban entire websites. In a speech to journalists on Wednesday, Macron said he planned to introduce new legislation to strictly regulate fake news during online political campaigns. Gizmodo reports: His proposal included a number of measures, most drastically "an emergency legal action" that could enable the government to either scrap "fake news" from a website or even block a website altogether. "If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules," Macron said. "When fake news are spread, it will be possible to go to a judge... and if appropriate have content taken down, user accounts deleted and ultimately websites blocked."

Macron, himself a target of election interference, also outlined some less extreme measures in his speech yesterday. He proposed more rigid requirements around transparency, specifically in relation to online ads during elections. According to the Guardian, Macron said the legislation would force platforms to publicly identify who their advertisers are, as well as limit how much they can spend on ads over the course of an election campaign.

Comments

A perfectly good idea

[russotto]

I can think of no possible way this could be abused as political censorship to, say, protect the incumbent government from inconvenient reporting.

Re:A perfectly good idea

[Luckyo]

As we have seen in last election, all the slander against Trump didn't work out in the end.

Re:A perfectly good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean all the young liberals that believe every claim of racist, biggot, nazi, sexist, etc lobbed at anyone that does not fit a certain agenda?

Re:A perfectly good idea

[amiga3D]

But right now both sides can use that tactic, that's called free speech. When only one side gets to tell their bullshit that is censorship. The fact that anyone could make a serious pitch for censoring free speech is chilling.

Re:A perfectly good idea

[mwvdlee]

Hearing idiots speak is the price you pay for your own freedom of speech.

Re:A perfectly good idea

[Stuarticus]

Having robots controlled by foreign governments shouting at you constantly while pretending to be real idiots is just a free bonus.

Re:A perfectly good idea

[RedK]

So let's tie up the court system in dealing with judicial attacks between political opponents, while actual judicial matters pile up from the now lack of judges and court clerks to process actual requests for actual justice.

Sounds like a great plan even if both sides get to use it as a tool!

How bout this : The solution is never more governement. There already exists libel and slander laws. The bar is already high enough. Let's not give courts the power to censor the Internet.

There is a scientific basis for this.

[Gravis Zero]

We as humans are animals and as such can be victims of our own nature. In this context, it's a well understood fact that humans have a tendency to make poor long-term decisions based on sudden emotionally charged events. After the flood of neurotransmitters has subsided, we are much better at making long-term decisions.

Re:There is a scientific basis for this.

[DigiShaman]

It's called "leftism", and it comes in either fascism or communism; different sides of the same coin called tyranny. First Germany, now France wants to ban speech. Meanwhile in America, progressive college campuses are getting all violent with their Antifa (an ironic name considering the meaning and their own actions) movement while proclaiming safe spaces.

It's like the fucking matrix. Down the BLUE pill, and live a life of happy ignorance while under the control of tyranny. Take the RED pill, and accept the bitter world for what it is, but be liberated in knowing the truth, and having the liberty to walk a path of self determination.

Re:There is a scientific basis for this.

[AmiMoJo]

In the face of it, it seems like he wants a fast track legal procedure. The law already allows action against this kind of thing (slander/libel etc) but it often moves slowly and elections are a hard deadline.

It might actually be a good way to handle fake news. There will be the transparency and oversight of the legal system, with separation of politicians and judiciary. If the news isn't fake then trying to abuse the system is unlikely to end well for the abuser.

Probably worth trying. My main concern would be the potential cost of mounting a defence. In the interests of democracy it should be free for both sides.

Re:There is a scientific basis for this.

[h33t l4x0r]

Banning fake news is not the same thing as limiting free speech. You do not have the right to make false statements about political candidates. And if you think antifas are more violent than skinheads you need to get out more.

Re:Who gets to decide what is blocked?

[lucm]

If this were implemented in the United States, the Trump Administration would probably block any news about the Russia investigation.

Since there's been no evidence whatsoever in that "investigation", just speculation and theories based on nothing, the whole thing qualifies as fake news.

Look at this interview with the ultimate expert about this subject:
https://youtu.be/9Ikf1uZli4g

The guy has zero facts, only vague accusations, and yet he's on expert panels all the time to discuss this bullshit. There's no evidence, all they say over and over is that Russia would like to control people like Trump. They keep using buzzwords like "transactional relationship" but they don't back it with any information at all.

it's being reported that

[Idisagree]

one man's fake news is another man's truth. YMMV.

Re:Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequen

[rickb928]

What stands our about your argument is the concern that free speech, if 'abused' (my term), could be dangerous in that it could spur some to commit despicable crimes.

More amazing that that, which is possible a genuine problem, is that it is ALREADY HAPPENING IN THE US.

The response to Trump's inauguration? Riots, violence, looting in Washington DC. College campuses are now the sites of violent demonstrations against, and even attacks upon, non-Leftist speakers.

A man actually went to a baseball field and shot Republican members of Congress, with the intent to murder them.

Which side of this argument both intended to and may have suppressed free speech, and also used physical violence to both suppress speech and attempt to murder the opposition?

Which side needs to be recognized as sufficiently dangerous that it needs to be identified as such and defeated at the polls?

Which side needs to be held accountable for the rhetoric they spread that leads to this unacceptable violence?