@@constitutionalclarion1901 75 different coloured matched outfits! I’m impressed. Given the standard bookshelf background, it is an easy to keep track of different videos. I’ve seen 7 so far and am looking forward to the other 68. Wish these had been around 50 years ago - I might have achieved a HD in Con law.
You're doing wonderful work, presenting often complex concepts in such a way that almost anyone can understand. The icing on top, is that you make it interesting and even entertaining as well. Thank you. Please, keep it up !
Oh, at last !! A few laws and court cases will make politicians into ideal philosopher-kings, evidence-based truth tellers all ! What more could we ask for? How dare you cast doubt on this beautiful scenario !
I don't know at what point I started eagerly anticipating the next Constitutional Clarion video but thats where I'm at now lol. Keep up the great work!
Thanks. I've plenty of material, so will keep going as long as I can record videos between periods of next door building work and squawking cockatoos and kookaburras!
One thing I do like about Australian electoral advertising is the authorisation statement. Yes, you might legally be able to say any nonsense you want, but you have to say who is responsible. Someone must stand behind the statement. That is useful information for an elector. A lot of misinformation today happens due to people passing things around privately via social media, and to a first approximation, nobody ever puts their name to the claims made therein. It seems to me that this is the greater risk in the current era.
Yes, the authorisation statements are really important in advertisements. Much more misinformation is spread on social media by people hiding behind anonymity who take no responsibility for it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Here's the opportunity to reset legal definitions that correspond to legitimate reporting and representation of lawfulness, the vague awareness of doing the right thing that is supposed to be a natural inheritance. If the Electorate is composed of Citizens who's responsibility it is to act as Jury on Election Day, the Education System has made an abysmal failure of teaching-learning the issues. Eg the ongoing use by the military industrial complex to use nukes as bargaining chips, conflate the ensuing terror of the uncertain possibilities that come from such irresponsible insanity with peaceful power generation, and in general, are running a mafia-like Racketeering political propaganda action of Control Fraud.
Well done on another interesting clarion, and lovely jacket. You've gotten me curious of the past of regulatory standards of political advertising. Has there ever been a time or situation where, no party advertising was legal outside of heavily regulated and fact checked means?
In some countries, they banned electronic advertising for parties (i.e. on radio and television) other than free, strictly regulated, party statements. When Australia tried doing that it was struck down by the High Court in 1992 as unconstitutional, spawning the implied freedom of political communication.
Yep, I'm intrigued that people think they can easily determine truth - Socrates, Zoroaster, etc, etc have been wrestling with that one for years. As Ann said, it's trivially easy to couch a political attack, with little actual substance, as opinion.
If it is understood that something may not be possible when saying it why is it not a lie if not saying it can only be acheived if circumstances dont change.
Thanks as always for a great video! I have a question: Does the parliament have the power to recognise (or indeed, refuse to recognise) a foreign state by way of a motion? Does this power lie exclusively with the Department of Foreign Affairs? Or something else?
Very helpful information, but would love to hear some possible solutions to the problem of political parties/politicians providing misleading or inaccurate information via their "assertions, promises, opinions or predictions"... What would the legislation look like?
Great Episode - upshot here is that truth in advertising laws are entirely pointless. Key issue is how to determine when a statement is a fact and not an opinion, prediction or a promise, given this is in most cases impossible. This also means most political debates that argue a politician lied or had spread misinformation is simply meaningless as this is almost always opinion based. Consider the widey recognised 'lie' of Donald Trump's that the Democrats 'stole' the 2020 US election. This cannot be a 'lie' since it is simply Trump's opinion that changes in state electoral law, voting processes and voter registration etc by Democrats favoured Democrats.
What about if they at least made it so when they make an advertisement that they only do ads where they talk about themselves and their party and their Policies and not their opponents? I am not interested in what they say about their opponents.
Some restrictions can be placed upon advertisements (eg authorisations), but there might be a problem with the implied freedom of political communication if you prohibited parties for stating in advertising their views on the policies of others. It would be a matter for the courts to determine.
Without seeing the case law, or any proposed legislation, I'll have to disagree with a point. In the SA legislation the offence occurs when a statement is purported as fact, not when facts are stated incorrectly. A key problem in political advertising is that statements of opinion or predictions are often presented in a manner that would be construed as fact by the casual listener. For example "the interest rates will be higher under ..." is not couched in such a way that it is an opinion eg: "it is our opinion" or "we predict", it is stated as though this a known thing. An educated person, who knows how interest rates occur, could deduce that this is an opinion couched as a fact, but someone relying on politicians for information would not be able to deduce that and would have to conclude that if denied by the other party one or the other would be lying with no way to differentiate. Communication in political advertising needs to be clear to the uneducated listener what is fact, what is opinion, and what is prediction.
Yes, it would be helpful for political communications to be clearer. But the problem still arises that you cannot determine that a statement is 'inaccurate and misleading to a material extent' if it is simply a prediction of what will happen in the future.
Do you think we simply need to give up on truth in politics? That there is no such thing as a lie in politics? If not, do you think it is possible for these standards to be enforced?
Personally, I'd like everyone to tell the truth. But there are real problems when it comes to deciding who is the arbiter of truth and how that operates during a politically heated election with short timeframes. I was just reading a decision by Chief Justice Forbes in NSW in 1827, when he decided that Governor Darling's 'Bill for Regulating the Publication of Newspapers' was invalid because it was repugnant to the constitutional privilege of liberty of the press as recognised under the law of England, relying on Blackstone's Commentaries from 1769. This has been fraught issue for a very long time.
@@evanhadkins5532 I would say you’ve somewhat misread Professor Twomey by assuming those questions have such blunt responses lacking nuance. I don’t want to put words in her mouth, so here would be my answers (not hers): Q. Do you think we simply need to give up on truth in politics? A. I’d prefer we didn’t, but given the adage that a lie can get around the world before the truth can get its shoes on, it is just naive to think we can solve the problem by passing some laws and getting lawyers to slog it out! Litigation is expensive and slow. Trying to use "truth in advertising" laws to stop misinformation being spread during elections would be like trying to bail water from a sinking ship with a teaspoon. Q. That there is no such thing as a lie in politics? A. Obviously there is. The problem is how you have a fair process for determining that a lie is a lie, which doesn’t bring the fact-finder into disrepute as being biased and in the tank for one or other of the participants. That’s especially why electoral commissions are unwilling to be yoked into that position when they may lack the expertise and their main job is that they have an incredibly complex event to run. Q. If not, do you think it is possible for these standards to be enforced? A. It might be possible, but pessimistically, I think it would require people to engage in good faith to agree to some standard, and presently there is no apparent agreement that there even /should/ be a standard. Certainly if you look at the people who engage in political communication on hashtag auspol, I’m sure they’d be agreeable to that (Warning: extreme sarcasm). If we look at other jurisdictions, things look even less favourable - there’s one large country where one of the two major parties (I might even refer to them as grand parties, or old parties) has completely pivoted to election denialism as their principal strategy for retaining power. Lastly on matters sartorial, the green velvet jacket and scarf combination is my favourite so far; exquisite. (I can forecast further poverty in my immediate future, looking up what velvet jackets cost online, lol.)
@@Xanthe_Cat Many thanks for your considered reply, which I agree with. The video was just an attack and didn't provide any of the constructive suggestions you do. I'm still seeking what can be done. The Australia Institute has a proposal, which may or may not be workable. The video was rather lacking nuance too I think.
This is the first Constitutional Clarion video Ive watched, and found it very enjoyable! cant wait to watch more! :)
There's plenty of existing material to watch too - 75 other videos in all. Enjoy!
@@constitutionalclarion1901 75 different coloured matched outfits! I’m impressed. Given the standard bookshelf background, it is an easy to keep track of different videos. I’ve seen 7 so far and am looking forward to the other 68. Wish these had been around 50 years ago - I might have achieved a HD in Con law.
It is still not being truthful to the voters.
You're doing wonderful work, presenting often complex concepts in such a way that almost anyone can understand. The icing on top, is that you make it interesting and even entertaining as well.
Thank you.
Please, keep it up !
Much appreciated. I need the encouragement (considering a lot of the comments I get!)
Oh, at last !! A few laws and court cases will make politicians into ideal philosopher-kings, evidence-based truth tellers all ! What more could we ask for? How dare you cast doubt on this beautiful scenario !
I don't know at what point I started eagerly anticipating the next Constitutional Clarion video but thats where I'm at now lol. Keep up the great work!
Can relate 🤣
Skilbidy grungus
nerd
Thanks. I've plenty of material, so will keep going as long as I can record videos between periods of next door building work and squawking cockatoos and kookaburras!
One thing I do like about Australian electoral advertising is the authorisation statement. Yes, you might legally be able to say any nonsense you want, but you have to say who is responsible. Someone must stand behind the statement. That is useful information for an elector.
A lot of misinformation today happens due to people passing things around privately via social media, and to a first approximation, nobody ever puts their name to the claims made therein. It seems to me that this is the greater risk in the current era.
Yes, the authorisation statements are really important in advertisements. Much more misinformation is spread on social media by people hiding behind anonymity who take no responsibility for it.
@@constitutionalclarion1901
Here's the opportunity to reset legal definitions that correspond to legitimate reporting and representation of lawfulness, the vague awareness of doing the right thing that is supposed to be a natural inheritance.
If the Electorate is composed of Citizens who's responsibility it is to act as Jury on Election Day, the Education System has made an abysmal failure of teaching-learning the issues.
Eg the ongoing use by the military industrial complex to use nukes as bargaining chips, conflate the ensuing terror of the uncertain possibilities that come from such irresponsible insanity with peaceful power generation, and in general, are running a mafia-like Racketeering political propaganda action of Control Fraud.
Well done on another interesting clarion, and lovely jacket.
You've gotten me curious of the past of regulatory standards of political advertising.
Has there ever been a time or situation where, no party advertising was legal outside of heavily regulated and fact checked means?
In some countries, they banned electronic advertising for parties (i.e. on radio and television) other than free, strictly regulated, party statements. When Australia tried doing that it was struck down by the High Court in 1992 as unconstitutional, spawning the implied freedom of political communication.
Interesting to imagine, had it passed, it would have changed everything. Probably for the better in my opinion.
Yep, I'm intrigued that people think they can easily determine truth - Socrates, Zoroaster, etc, etc have been wrestling with that one for years.
As Ann said, it's trivially easy to couch a political attack, with little actual substance, as opinion.
Hilarious title, but the Deliberate Blindness technique is amplified by distracted good humor.
If it is understood that something may not be possible when saying it why is it not a lie if not saying it can only be acheived if circumstances dont change.
Thank you for including a text summary of what you talk about - the automatic captioning makes some silly mistakes.
Thanks as always for a great video! I have a question: Does the parliament have the power to recognise (or indeed, refuse to recognise) a foreign state by way of a motion? Does this power lie exclusively with the Department of Foreign Affairs? Or something else?
Very helpful information, but would love to hear some possible solutions to the problem of political parties/politicians providing misleading or inaccurate information via their "assertions, promises, opinions or predictions"... What would the legislation look like?
Great Episode - upshot here is that truth in advertising laws are entirely pointless. Key issue is how to determine when a statement is a fact and not an opinion, prediction or a promise, given this is in most cases impossible. This also means most political debates that argue a politician lied or had spread misinformation is simply meaningless as this is almost always opinion based.
Consider the widey recognised 'lie' of Donald Trump's that the Democrats 'stole' the 2020 US election. This cannot be a 'lie' since it is simply Trump's opinion that changes in state electoral law, voting processes and voter registration etc by Democrats favoured Democrats.
What about if they at least made it so when they make an advertisement that they only do ads where they talk about themselves and their party and their Policies and not their opponents? I am not interested in what they say about their opponents.
Some restrictions can be placed upon advertisements (eg authorisations), but there might be a problem with the implied freedom of political communication if you prohibited parties for stating in advertising their views on the policies of others. It would be a matter for the courts to determine.
Without seeing the case law, or any proposed legislation, I'll have to disagree with a point. In the SA legislation the offence occurs when a statement is purported as fact, not when facts are stated incorrectly. A key problem in political advertising is that statements of opinion or predictions are often presented in a manner that would be construed as fact by the casual listener. For example "the interest rates will be higher under ..." is not couched in such a way that it is an opinion eg: "it is our opinion" or "we predict", it is stated as though this a known thing. An educated person, who knows how interest rates occur, could deduce that this is an opinion couched as a fact, but someone relying on politicians for information would not be able to deduce that and would have to conclude that if denied by the other party one or the other would be lying with no way to differentiate. Communication in political advertising needs to be clear to the uneducated listener what is fact, what is opinion, and what is prediction.
Yes, it would be helpful for political communications to be clearer. But the problem still arises that you cannot determine that a statement is 'inaccurate and misleading to a material extent' if it is simply a prediction of what will happen in the future.
Do you think we simply need to give up on truth in politics? That there is no such thing as a lie in politics? If not, do you think it is possible for these standards to be enforced?
Personally, I'd like everyone to tell the truth. But there are real problems when it comes to deciding who is the arbiter of truth and how that operates during a politically heated election with short timeframes.
I was just reading a decision by Chief Justice Forbes in NSW in 1827, when he decided that Governor Darling's 'Bill for Regulating the Publication of Newspapers' was invalid because it was repugnant to the constitutional privilege of liberty of the press as recognised under the law of England, relying on Blackstone's Commentaries from 1769. This has been fraught issue for a very long time.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 It has. I take it your answer to my questions are: yes, no. And no answer.
@@evanhadkins5532 I would say you’ve somewhat misread Professor Twomey by assuming those questions have such blunt responses lacking nuance. I don’t want to put words in her mouth, so here would be my answers (not hers):
Q. Do you think we simply need to give up on truth in politics? A. I’d prefer we didn’t, but given the adage that a lie can get around the world before the truth can get its shoes on, it is just naive to think we can solve the problem by passing some laws and getting lawyers to slog it out! Litigation is expensive and slow. Trying to use "truth in advertising" laws to stop misinformation being spread during elections would be like trying to bail water from a sinking ship with a teaspoon.
Q. That there is no such thing as a lie in politics? A. Obviously there is. The problem is how you have a fair process for determining that a lie is a lie, which doesn’t bring the fact-finder into disrepute as being biased and in the tank for one or other of the participants. That’s especially why electoral commissions are unwilling to be yoked into that position when they may lack the expertise and their main job is that they have an incredibly complex event to run.
Q. If not, do you think it is possible for these standards to be enforced? A. It might be possible, but pessimistically, I think it would require people to engage in good faith to agree to some standard, and presently there is no apparent agreement that there even /should/ be a standard. Certainly if you look at the people who engage in political communication on hashtag auspol, I’m sure they’d be agreeable to that (Warning: extreme sarcasm). If we look at other jurisdictions, things look even less favourable - there’s one large country where one of the two major parties (I might even refer to them as grand parties, or old parties) has completely pivoted to election denialism as their principal strategy for retaining power.
Lastly on matters sartorial, the green velvet jacket and scarf combination is my favourite so far; exquisite. (I can forecast further poverty in my immediate future, looking up what velvet jackets cost online, lol.)
@@Xanthe_Cat Many thanks for your considered reply, which I agree with. The video was just an attack and didn't provide any of the constructive suggestions you do. I'm still seeking what can be done. The Australia Institute has a proposal, which may or may not be workable. The video was rather lacking nuance too I think.
Presented so we'll none of these long boring words that all the young people seem to use now just basic normal English .