Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Referendums
Message-ID: <1131@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Oct-84 12:59:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: dciem.1131
Posted: Sat Oct 13 12:59:43 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 18:33:50 EDT
References: <809@ubc-ean.CDN>
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 30

==================
...  one possible solution is to impose spending
limits on advertising and to adopt *very* strict rules concerning
knowingly making false statements. This way both sides will
get approximately the same amount of coverage and what we hear
we will know to be the truth. 
==================
That word "knowingly" is the key to why this solution to the media-advertizing
difficulty wouldn't work.  On capital punishment, one would have

   "It is obvious that people would be less likely to murder if they
   knew they might die as a consequence."
   "It is clear that more murders happen when there is a death penalty
   in effect."

One of these statements must be false, but both are used in good conscience
as statements of fact in the debate.  Should both be regarded as
disallowed in a referendum debate; should one be allowed if sociological
research showed it to be true; should both be allowed since it is
"obvious" that neither is made "knowing" it to be false?

The problem with this "knowingly making a false statement" is that it
gives much more leeway to the ignorant and prejudiced to air their
opinions than to those who have studied the question and are aware
that dogmatic assertions usually have their exceptions.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt