Truth is a philosophical construct.
What we need are verifiable facts based on tested reality.
Misleading and false election ads are legal in Australia. We need national truth in political advertising laws
Submitted 2 weeks ago by Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone to australianpolitics@aussie.zone
Comments
Seagoon_@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 week ago
Okay, sure. Our only difference is we’re working off different meanings of truth for this.
To this,
Truth needs to be verifiable in these situations, otherwise it can’t be established and actionable.
Even if someone is telling the truth, if they cannot prove that truth, the ‘rest’ (other people) cannot rely on it.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Might be difficult to properly assign who decides the truth.
Judges and Scientific Journals, I guess?
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 week ago
It really isn’t as hard as you imagine.
Government functionary bodies, enforce legislated demands for truth in national life all the time, ACCC (consumer protection laws, advertising), ASIC (company reporting), Fuel regs (notice those little check signs on each bowser), nutritional standards, and all the others, finally AEC already has responsibilities in this area, just not in the whole time period, which is what this article is about.
A tiny amount of the cases these regulatory bodies deal with ever end up in court. Even the mention of further action gets compliance in more cases than not. You could describe the presence and continuance of this system as a positive example of a chilling effect.
In this case, the mere presence of our system, acting against misleading and lying behaviour, acts as deterence in itself.
Backing this up with a predictable and ascending order of approbium, corrections and punishments reinforces the expectations of the functionality of the system.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 week ago
For sure, but I still think there is enough room for bad actors that I would need to see a plan before agreeing to the notions of a plan, but I’m not Australian so my opinion doesn’t really matter here.
Like for example, the USA currently has a policy removing all mentions of trans, nonbinary, and certain pronouns from government websites. They’re also gutting climate science and infectious disease research publications they previously hosted. So, you know, make sure you dudes outline who and why something can be stricken down when you implement the process of taking things down.
No1@aussie.zone 1 week ago
If this is an ad, I don’t know what to think…
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 week ago
I think they want to persuade you that the Greens have a nefarious plan to turn all the old telstra phone boxes into streetside change rooms.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
Okay, so what we need to get these laws passed is the Unions to come up with false and misleading advertisements about Dutton, the Nationals, and Albanese, in the next week or two before this next election is called, and sit back and watch the amendments sail through with the full support of the opposition.
“If the Unions are doing it, it must be wrong!” Some Liberal staffer, probably.
Echinoderm@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
I doubt they would need to enact truth in political advertising laws for that. Dutton and his colleagues have shown a willingness to flex defamation laws when people say things that make them feel sad. They are also privileged enough to be among the few who have the financial means to pursue those kinds of actions.
My guess is you’d end up with a bunch of strategically expensive defamation actions that are intended to tie up those sort of advertisements until after the election.
Now, if it was something that would stop the Greens or teals from building more support? Watch that fly through Parliament with bipartisan approval.
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 weeks ago
I think the Unions are still big enough to deal with the threat of frivolous defo suits. Or, more importantly, they’re large enough that the wealthy have to think twice.