you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 77 points 1 day ago (24 children)

But who determines what's a lie?

  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

    I assume it would work like a perjury trial, where you have to prove they lied beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law. So its basically like theyre always under oath.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

    This is the only way that makes sense. Lots of people complain when a politician breaks campaign promises like:

    "I am going to lower the cost of living".

    It's not really a lie when they fail cause it isnt just up to them. Weaker wording like:

    "I am going to try to lower the cost of living"

    Would be technically non-falsifiable, but not actually matter to people.

    The only things that I think would actually make sense to prosecute are intentional misrepresentation of facts, or decisions that are directly in their power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago

    Yeah I would go even further and say it shouldn't apply to broken promises unless there is evidence they never intended to do it. Like maybe they promise "I will [reverse some policy] on day one" and then, idk the country goes to war and reversing that policy isn't feasible. I dont think politicians should be criminally liable for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 1 day ago (4 children)
  • [–] 14 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    Not many people know this, but George Washington didn't originally say, "I cannot tell a lie." It was actually, "I can only tell truthiness." It was Abraham Lincoln that later convinced him to adjust the wording going forward.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago

    If I were to guess, it'd be a jury. If people agree it was a lie then it was a lie. You need to at least be honest enough that a jury wouldn't agree it was a lie. I have no idea on this though, nor how the Welsh legal system functions, so don't take my word on it. This just seems like the only reasonable option.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Courts? That's kind of their thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

    Sure, if you trust them. Not sure how objective they are in Wales but a lot of our courts here are pretty corrupt. Plus it's just going to be very hard to prove because you can always claim you genuinely believed what you said.

    In theory I love the idea of holding people who lie to the public accountable but I'm just not sure how well it will work in practice. I guess we'll find out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (4 children)

    If they say something that isn't true, it's a lie. Not exactly rocket science.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

    You've just defined being wrong as a crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 14 hours ago (1 child)

    Then say "I don't know" of you don't know. It should be a crime to knowingly misleading people on important matters.

    They are supposed to work us, we are their bosses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 22 hours ago

    It's much more nuanced than that. Denying climate change is a lie. Disagreeing with various projections could be lying, ignorance, or genuine criticism. The UK government has proclaimed Palestine Action to be a terrorist organization, which is clearly untrue. Would contradicting such a lie proclaimed as truth by the current government be deemed lying?

  • source
  • parent