Federal Anti-Hoaxing Statute ??, ... from the BFRO.net Options

[GuyInIndiana]

Here's an editorial (only thing I know to call it) from Matt Moneymaker, founder of the BFRO.

http://www.bfro.net/news_hoax.asp

Arguments for a Federal Anti-Hoaxing Statute
by Matthew Moneymaker

The framers of the Constitution believed the news media should be protected from interference by the government. It was one of their guarantees of free speech. The framers could not have foreseen how the press might become vulnerable to interference by non-government actors.

Hoaxes occurred in the Constitutional era as well, but their impact was different when the press was only in print; not spread instantaneously to millions of people. News stories in that era had more time to cook before circulation, allowing more time for the truth to emerge before people were called upon to mobilize.

You may have loads of gripes about the news media today, but you would feel cut off from humanity if the news media ever went away. Serious interference with the national news media would leave whole communities vulnerable to panic-mongering and destructive manipulation.

Government is not the only entity that should not be allowed to interfere with the news media. Everyone should respect the news media as a pipeline of communication that we all rely upon. Deceptive schemes and hoaxes directed at television or radio news channels should be legally prohibited. The prohibition should be placed into the U.S. Code near its closest relative: The law prohibiting Wire Fraud

Unfortunately the Wire Fraud statute does not apply to hoax cases like "Balloon Boy" in Colorado, because that scheme did not yield (nor even require) a specific victim to be tricked out of money or property, or a legal right. Without those elements there was no "conspircay to commit wire fraud" either.


If Heene accepted money for interviews following the incident, he did not defraud anyone then because he actually did the interviews. He was not being paid to tell the truth; he was merely being paid to appear and talk, and he did.

Heene was later charged with a felony for making false statements to law enforcement officers (and other public officials) ... but not for hoaxing the press and the public. That part was permissable, and that's why it happens. You can get away with it. There is no real punishment.

The threat of shame and infamy is no deterrent to some people. Hoaxers are often desperate people who have no good reputation to lose. They have only some hope that dubious fame might bring them somewhere better.

Some suggest the news media is partly to blame when they fall for hoaxes by these types of people, either because the news people should have investigated the matter more thoroughly, or they simply should have known better. But blaming the news media for these situations is like blaming the victim. It also reveals some unfamiliarity with the electronic news gathering process. Nowadays, news directors make quick decisions about whether to go live to a breaking news story somewhere. On occassion, unscrupulous people will take advantage of that ... especially if it's perfectly legal to do so ... and there's a belief floating around out there that fame and fortune can be gotten quickly that way ... if all else fails ...

The news media tries to avoid stories, rumors and characters that do not appear to be credible. They definitely do know better most of the time. The few hoaxes that make it all the way to live breaking coverage on all news channels ... are the scams that wiggle through the net. That happens when the scam is novel, sensational and elaborate ... and the scammer is a persuasive conman, or a pretty good actor.

Richard Heene upset many people for a list of reasons. The viewers who became glued to the story on live TV thought they were witnessing a tragedy. A few days later when it became clear that it was a hoax, people felt highly offended, and rightfully so. It was more than a publicity stunt. It was a publicity scheme that misused the news media, the public, and law enforcement, as it exploited the strong concern and focus that humans always have for a child in imminent physcial danger.

Tom Biscardi's "Dead Bigfoot hoax" in 2008 angered many people also, but it did not cross the same line as the Balloon Boy hoax. Although one of the perpetrators was a sheriff deputy, the dead bigfoot was never reported to a law enforcement agency by any of three perpetrators, so there was no false police report involved. There was no apparent crime to investigate otherwise (perhaps just a civil lawsuit), and no public safety concern, so law enforcement did not get involved at all.

Biscardi had years of experience structuring cons in ways that allowed him to avoid accountability and prosecution. He knew to avoid making any statements to law enforcement officers along the way. At the same time he could spout outlandish lies and misrepresentations to anyone in the media, even on live national news broadcasts, with no consequences except for acheiving the status of a "controversial television celebrity" ... For some men that status is preferable to being a lonely, discarded failure.

Richard Heene was probably familiar with the Dead Bigfoot hoax. He probably followed the story enough to know that a sheriff deputy was involved in that case, and a few people made a few thousand dollars off it, but noone went to jail.

The lack of prosecution in Biscardi's case may have contributed to Heene's decision to perpetrate his own hoax.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems odd that a person can be jailed for lying to a single law enforcement officer, but if a person weaves a tapestry of lies for TV reporters in order to deceive millions of people simultaneously ... that's perfectly legal.

We generally agree that law enforcement officers should not be deceived with false reports, or interfered with unnecessarily, or used inappropriately, because they provide vital public services. But TV news and radio are vital public services also ... and no less vital because they are privately owned. Those services should not be interfered with, or used inappropriately, either.

We all relinquish our rights to freedom of speech in a long list of contexts already:

- You are not allowed to threaten the president's life.
- You are not allowed to falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
- You are not allowed to make terrorist threats to your neighbors.
- You are not allowed to write a letter to someone and claim there is anthrax in the envelope.
- You are not allowed to "cry wolf" about a military aggression.
- You are not allowed to joke about having a bomb on an airliner.
- Etc, etc.

Relinquishing our rights to certain types of speech in certain contexts ... is a good thing. We can certainly add another reasonable item to that list: You cannot perpetrate hoaxes on television news or radio news. This conduct should be prohibited and penalized on two basic principles: 1) Broadcast news media outlets are important community resources, even though they are privately owned, which protect and serve and reassure us all. 2) The law should protect any important community resource from being deceptively misused for private gain.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would an anti-hoaxing statute open a can of worms? Would it discourge people from speaking to journalists, for fear they might be prosecuted later if their statements turn out to be inaccurate?


No, and no. The language of the statute could limit its application to fraud schemes and hoaxes directed at TV and radio new outlets, rather than just false statements to journalists. Making this distinction clear in the statutory language should not be impossible, because something like a Balloon Boy hoax is a very different animal than a denial about an extramarital affair, for example.

A legal prohibition against news hoaxes would benefit everyone. It would certainly make the job easier for the front line of electronic news gatherers, because there would be much less chaffe to separate from the wheat ... if bogus chaffe was prohibited by law.

There is also the issue of fairness: If we demand high standards from news people, then we should also demand high standards from those who provide information to news people. The news media usually endeavors to maintain the highest standards of credibility because there are some negative consequences if they don't. The threat of negative consequences, in some real form, should apply all the way through the chain of news gathering, not just at the final rungs of the chain.

The interconnected, national reach of the news media clearly requires the statute to be a federal law rather than a state law. There can be no safe-haven states where hoaxes can occur legally, and then be transmitted to other states -- the same logic that made wire fraud a federal crime.



Copyright © 2009 BFRO.net

There are a couple of hyper-text links in there that didn't translate in the posting of the article. For the full context on any of those that I can't get fixed, visit the original article for those links.

[DevouredbyVermn]

Perhaps this could be a good thing, but would people just screw it up by abusing it? I suppose it would depend how it was implemented, but would you want to see it become like DSS? People calling on each other just for the hastle of the whole thing.

[windtalker]

Well this was interesting.
I was reading the op and working with super glue at the same time.
Didn't realize I had any on my fingers until I decided to reply and semi stuck to the clicker on my mouse.
I blame you Guy!

Anyway, I'll make a reference to one, maybe two things Political here but the reference is intended to only be used as an example of what I intend to imply.
I have no intentions whatsoever for the reference/s to be discussed and I myself will not engage in any discussion of them.

I understand what Matt is trying to get across and empathize with what he would like to see done pertaining to news and or 'net control.
I myself at times sit in front of my pc for about 14 hours at a time.
I also read the news daily,, online of course.
I'm primarily engaged in seeking out an income to replace or exceed the income I had before I became disabled.
The only avenue I realistically have at this time is to use the 'net,, which abounds with scams/misinformation geared at folks not unlike myself.
I also see the misleading info on the News side.
I agree with wishing there were some way to throttle those who wish to defraud/hoax/mislead others on the 'net as well as in the news.
There realistically isn't however in my mind.
Matt states he doesn't think the Government should be involved with interfering with the press.
I agree.
To an extent.
The same goes for the 'net with which I further agree,,, to an extent.
He further states there should be some form of control engineered to filter out hoaxers from the news which would also include the 'net.
I understood him to imply this filter would involve laws with punishments.
That would be nice but how would that be accomplished without involving Federal as well as State Government, which enact and enforce our laws?
For the 'net it would also involve International law.
I myself wish to keep the Government out of our personal lives within reason as much as possible.
The reason for this is no matter how good the intentions something starts out as with the Government, things get "fixed" until they were better left alone to begin with.
An example is the current health care issue.
For something of the nature of what Matt wishes for, it is already in place but is limited.
To stop something along the lines of Bigfoot hoaxes, newscasters themselves would have to learn the reasonable ins and outs of the field, but even then, what could be ended up with as a newscaster who is an "expert" in the field?
Look around.
A person has to devote some serious time in this field to figure out who can be trusted and who can't.
Then the mentality of the person trying to learn comes into play.
Are they capable of rational thought on their own or are they fairly gullible?
The same goes for those that provide 'net access.
I would fight tooth and nail to keep control to a minimum on the 'net.
It may be a montage of scams all going simultaneously on the 'net and one only has to type the search phrase "online income" to have a list that exceeds a quarter million easily to see a fraction of them, but I still have my freedom maximized and within reason.
How many years would it take for all those hits to be researched and decided upon.
There is no way to control things of that nature as rest assured out of numbers that high, several of the offers will be legit.
He also should keep in mind the Georgia boys paid for their hoax even though no laws were broken.
The Balloon Boy hoaxers would have paid as well even if they hadn't lied to police.
They're all "famous" now.
Who will ever trust them from now on?
The former law enforcement officer of the Georgia Boys hoax can't find a job.
Dunno the other fellow.
I'll wager the Balloon Boys dad also gets a lot of respect now at his place of employment as well as from his neighbors.
I say leave well enough alone.

[GuyInIndiana]

I guess my biggest problem with the whole thing is, 'who' determines that something IS a hoax? What if someone only 'thinks' it is a hoax, calls a hoax, but has no proof it's a hoax? The one thing there's very little proof of in bigfooting, IS the existence of the creature in the first place.

Hell, the idiots who've tried to make a stink over our recordings just shift their claims about what's wrong with them or us, when the latest accusation doesn't stick. They've gone from "you're being hoaxed" to "YOU ARE DOING the hoaxing", but of course, they don't even have or know anything factual. They just look for any excuse to fling poo. And that's the issue.

Anyone out there who may have something worth sharing or revealing would have a real hard time deciding to release it if they fear they'll be hit with some stupid federal law that could land them with prison time, AND likely massive fines and penalties.

I understand the point of having laws.... it just seems like every time something new comes along, the first thing many who are insecure want, is to create another "law to deal with... x ...". Maybe we need a law so we can't make any more laws. Yeah. That's the ticket.