This is a proposal for instituting a procedure which will allow members of the public to
challenge the truth of statements made by public figures in public contexts.
Once
a challenge has been made, a panel made up of individuals accredited by a new
national body would judge whether the challenge was justified. The job of these
individuals would be similar to that of magistrates or judges in legal cases,
but the idea is that this procedure would operate relatively informally and flexibly,
to avoid costly and time-consuming legal proceedings, as far as possible. If
the panel upholds the challenge, the perpetrator would be given a first
warning. If the panel finds that the challenge was not justified, the
challenger would be given a first warning, as in the situation of drivers found
to have broken the speed limit. Anyone who receives, say, three warnings would
be banned, either from making public statements, or from challenging such
statements, for 5 years. Being found to have made untrue statements three
times, then, would in effect prevent a politician or columnist practising their
profession, so they would have to resign. Mischievous challenges would also be
discouraged.
The
system would not be perfect, and panels may often difficulty separating
statements purporting to be of fact, with statements of opinion. There will also need to be a working definition of 'the public domain' - but I see no great difficulty with this - it is illegal already for advertisers to mislead the public. However the
primary purpose of such a system would be to promote the importance of truth
telling in the public sphere, and to highlight the damage that lying and
misleading the public can do to democratic culture and institutions. Difficult
cases would produce debate about honesty in the public sphere, which over time
would improve the quality of our political culture, and the probity of public
life.
The
popularity of such systems in cricket and tennis, which have now become
valuable additions to the tactics of the game, and have clearly captured the
enthusiasm of spectators and fans, suggests that the proposed system might also
capture public attention, thereby undermining cynical but fashionable 'fake news' trends, and hopefully reinvigorating our democratic culture.
