A 1951 description of post-truth hell
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” -- attributed to James R. Schlesinger; this is no longer always true, at least some liars are entitled to use their own lies and are sometimes richly rewarded for doing so
The stolen election legal war
A successful new legal strategy against defamation lawsuits has spread from a lawsuit against Tucker Carlson by Karen McDougal to other cases. In that case, Carlson argued through his Fox attorneys that he could not be liable for defamation because no reasonable person would believe he was serious. The court accepted that he was an bloviating entertainer who dispenses “non-literal commentary” for a living. Despite the fact that in court and under oath Carlson claimed that he is a liar and blowhard, millions of people still take him seriously.
That strategy has spread to defamation lawsuits by Dominion Voting Systems against attorneys such as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani for falsely claiming that Dominion somehow helped steal the 2020 election from the ex-president. Powell and others are trying Tucker’s Liar Defense and are claiming they should not have been taken seriously and are thus not liable for defamation. That is despite the fact that tens of millions of people took them seriously and still believe the election was stolen. Powell still claims that although no one should have believed her, she knows the election was stolen. Maybe that reflects the brilliant post-truth, pro-ex-president election rhetorical tactic, “don’t take ’em literally, but take ’em seriously.” That was true propaganda brilliance, leaving people free to believe whatever they want regardless of what someone says. That is true post-truth.[1]
The New York Times now reports that even before Powell and Rudy started spreading stolen election lies, the ex-president's campaign had investigated the allegations and found them to be false. The NYT writes about documents released in a court filing:
The documents also suggest that the [ex-president’s] campaign sat on its findings about Dominion even as Sidney Powell and other lawyers attacked the company in the conservative media and ultimately filed four federal lawsuits accusing it of a vast conspiracy to rig the election against Mr. Trump.
Even before the lies started flying in lawsuits, the campaign knew that (i) Dominion did not use voting technology it was falsely claimed to be using in the 2020 election, (ii) Dominion had no direct ties to Venezuela or to Mr. Soros as falsely claimed, and (iii) there was no evidence that Dominion had any connections to left-wing Antifa activists as falsely claimed. That is some of what the stolen election liars were claiming in public and in their lawsuits against the stolen election whopper.
The open question is whether such facts will make any difference or not. They may not. If the defense claim is that the liars are not liable for defamation because everyone knows that they are liars, what the liars knew was false should not make any difference. If that legal strategy works, it appears to provide a fun and easy but foolproof defense against defamation liability. The liar just has to assert some lies in public to establish their liar credentials. Then they are shielded and can go on to defame anyone they want, claiming that no one should take them seriously because they are liars and have the evidence to prove it.
If that legal analysis turns out to be right, and I hope it cannot for legal reasons I am unaware of, the American system of law will have degenerated into stupidity and corruption in political speech related cases. The last small vestige of restraint on lies in politics will have fallen to anti-democratic demagoguery, fascist demagoguery in this case. Even if this defamation defense tactic fails, the fact that it has to be beat down in court exemplifies just how morally degenerate that radical right demagogic political rhetoric has become. Demagogic liars gain public trust by showing tribe or cult loyalty by lying in public.
We were warned in 1951 about this. Well, here its is again, straight back from the political hell of the ~1930s-1940s.
Questions:
1. Since demagogues, dictators, kleptocrats and the like always resort to divisive, polarizing propaganda, what defenses does society have against this kind of anti-democratic attack and moral rot?
2. Is dark free speech[2] inherently anti-democratic?
Footnotes:
1. In a 2019 paper, a researcher described post-truth like this:
“.... in its purest form, post-truth is when one thinks that the crowd’s reaction actually does change the facts about the lie .... what seems to be new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself. .... [the] post-truth relationship to facts occurs only when we are seeking to assert something that is more important to us than truth itself. Thus, post-truth amounts to a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it or not. .... [post-truth is] a world in which politicians can challenge the facts and pay no political price whatsoever.”
2. Dark free speech: Divisive, polarizing lies, deceit, irrational emotional manipulation, partisan motivated reasoning, defamation, etc. intended and crafted to create, among other things, needless confusion, distractions, and unwarranted distrust, fear, anger, hate, bigotry, etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment