Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
there are two key problems with your suggestion. The first, ably skewered by Jeff and Tequila, is the old "What is Truth and who decides" problem. The second is the complete and utter irrelevance of the US constitution to actions taken outside of the US. In the age of the Internet, physical (geographic) borders are increasingly irrelevant as are the legislated systems of morality imposed within those borders. Sam's point about common definitions (e.g. "theft") comes to mind - that one is shared with most social systems, at least in general - and *might* be enforceable, at least in large parts of the globe. Irhabi rants? Not likely !
I'm aware of key problems with my proposal, and its Orwellian overtones, but the main point is to follow a 1st Amendment path to control of the media and not tamper with other freedoms there such as freedom of association, speech, etc. It's agreed that truth, like perception, is relative, but as Mary Mapes' book, Truth and Duty, points out, there are such things as facts and fact-checking which media wonks hype as the "truth to power" ideology. Too often, I think, this phrase is taken as a blank slate to bash anyone in power, but it also betrays the idea that the true definition of truth lies submerged within the journalistic mission, not some Ministry of Truth bureaucracy. I'm not suggesting that the government step in any more than necessary to prosecute liars and distorters, and am actually recommending civil not criminal penalties against the media as a corrective. As far as constitutional universality or dual sovereignty goes, I think it is fair to say that constitutional rights (such as a right to truth which I am proposing) devised in the U.S. do often find their way into international law, and with regard to the diverse cultures argument, I would think "truth" is about as universal as "theft."