Comment by arrowsmith
6 days ago
I don't like the tabloids either but what exactly do you propose we do? Are you sure it's a good idea to undermine the freedom of the press?
A government with the power to censor the tabloids is also a government with the power to censor the news outlets that you do like. I'd be careful about opening that can of worms.
Civil defamation laws could equally be used to undermine freedom of the press. In any case, the 'can of worms' you are talking about was the state of affairs in the UK until 2009 and is currently the case in several US states and yet somehow we still have people in those states openly criticizing a sitting president.
Rather than throwing our hands in the air, maybe we could expect our governments to craft laws in such a way that we can punish people for willful lies resulting in death while still preserving our right to free speech and the press.
The UK already has extremely strong defamation laws, to the point where we attract "libel tourism" - foreigners find dubious excuses to bring their libel cases to the UK courts so that they have an easier chance of winning.
Lots of people in my replies are telling me that I'm wrong, but no-one has yet answered my question: what specifically should the government do?
That’s because your question appears rhetorical. You had already come to the conclusion that governments couldn’t or shouldn’t do anything.
What could be done: (1) Stronger penalties, perhaps tied to proportionate burdens of proof. (2) Criminal penalties.
A weak burden of proof with mediocre penalties is just a cost of doing business.
No other country has as toxic a press culture as the UK. Addressing that doesn’t have to mean restricting press freedom. If something is a destructive cancer on society, you can’t just ignore it, or eventually it will destroy those freedoms for everyone else.
Simple things like anti-harassment rules, paparazzi regulations and rules against publishing known fabrications would be a good start without impugning on the freedom of press.
The United States (famously) has stronger free speech protections and weaker libel/slander laws, yet seems to have less of an issue with tabloids. Is there maybe more of a divide between what's alloweable for "public figures" versus private citizens? Or maybe even our right-wing rags are more skeptical of the government? I don't know what the difference is, but you seem to see less of this sort of thing, gross as our tabloids still are. Maybe it really is just a cultural difference somehow.
The US equivalent of a tabloid would be Fox News, right? #1 most viewed media outlet, argued in court nobody would take them seriously yet they do, current self-destructive regime wouldn't be in power without them? They're much worse.
The US tabloids are awful. Any checkout isle at a Walmart, Dollar General, etc is just littered with them, right next to the disposable lighter packs and chewing gum.
But nobody reads them in the US[1], and many are about celebrities or cryptids or what-have-you rather than current events or private citizens. There's definitely a cultural difference here.
[1] UK has 1/4th of the population of the US but The Sun has 4x the circulation of The New York Post. The Daily Mirror every day puts out 4x the number of papers that The National Enquirer puts out in a week.
Sure, I did say they were gross, but they just seem to mostly cause less concrete damage. Not sure why.
they aren't nearly as toxic as the UK tabloids.
Also, I never hear anybody talk about what the tabloids are reporting. There's a lot of social stigma attached to them in the US.
Aren't defamation laws in the UK almost shockingly restrictive? How the hell are they able to operate?
It is so expensive to sue somebody for libel that it is out of reach for most people. No matter how egregious the libel.
When tabloids circumvent due process to commit slander and get away with it there should be penalties, yes.
Defamation is already illegal. People sue each other for defamation all the time - in fact UK libel law is notoriously weighted in favour of the plaintiff. If these men were defamed they can sue the tabloids and they'll probably win.
GP was saying the government should do something. What more can the government do?
If they have a ton of money, which these postmasters do not.