shivas.wisdom said:

I dunno... seems like a slippery slope fallacy -- how is prohibiting knowingly false or misleading statements of fact intended to affect an election, materially different from empowering courts to punish individuals for making false or misleading statements of fact under oath?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

sudly said:

Only if the shapeshifting gatekeepers funded by AIPAC arent re-elected.

Schumer, jeffries and pelosi.

---

Pelosi is done January 2027...

There is a petition to keep Hakeem Jeffries from being speaker of the house. I signed it, along with many ppl I know, we will see if it has any impact. He is just awwwful.

Obviously, Schumer is fucking awful as well. He's the Milquetoastiest politician in Washington

---

shivas.wisdom said:

I dunno... seems like a slippery slope fallacy -- how is prohibiting knowingly false or misleading statements of fact intended to affect an election, materially different from empowering courts to punish individuals for making false or misleading statements of fact under oath?

---

shivas.wisdom said:

So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?

---

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?

---

Because it does not require an oath and it is nowhere near as broad as your first scenario. You offered two hypothetical and argued they were indistinguishable.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

I didn't argue that they were indistinguishable -- I asked you how they are materially different, because I wanted to better understand why you believe the Welsh government's power to punish lies "does not bode well" while drawing an explicit distinction between it and the US government, despite the latter also having the power to punish lies.

When you replied by identifying things like prior awareness and consent as important differences, I questioned how those distinctions can still hold up when we consider another existing aspect of the US government's power to punish lies that doesn't have those same features.

Is your only argument that my hypothetical must be interpreted in the broadest terms possible, and that any attempt on my part to narrow my argument is irrelevant?

---

sudly said:

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?

---

Because it does not require an oath and it is nowhere near as broad as your first scenario. You offered two hypothetical and argued they were indistinguishable.

---

What do you think of the idea of making it an oath?

A contractual obligation with well regulated standards.

---

Enlil said:

Until it's not...

It's only a matter of time before certain truths are deemed official, certified, or whatever word they want to use.  Truth becomes a question of consensus, eventually.

Apply that law to the U.S.  Are we jailing people for claiming 2020 election was stolen?  OR are we jailing people for claiming it wasn't?  Does it depend on the county we're in?  That's just one example, but I'm sure you can think of 100 in 10 minutes.

---

Enlil said:

sudly said:

Enlil said:

shivas.wisdom said:

So why exactly would 18usc1001, the statute criminalizing false statements, be irrelevant?

---

Because it does not require an oath and it is nowhere near as broad as your first scenario. You offered two hypothetical and argued they were indistinguishable.

---

What do you think of the idea of making it an oath?

A contractual obligation with well regulated standards.

---

I don't like the idea of criminalizing speech at all,  but i recognize it is necessary in some circumstances. I believe we should do it as little as possible.

I certainly don't see truth or honesty as the highest value.

---