I came upon "falsity" within a copyright-related Law Review article about the protected speech, and I was intrigued.
Is "falsity" a lesser known synonym for "falsehood"? Apparently, not quite. Intriguingly, one of the major meanings of "falsity" is"incorrectness". Another is "insincerity".
An interesting explanation is offered here: https://grammarist.com/usage/falsehood-falsity-falseness/
I infer that Galileo Galilei was the unfortunate recipient of the attentions of the Inquisition for falsity, because what he stated about the relationship between the Sun and our planet was contrary to correct thinking (received wisdom) at the time. Of course, the Inquisition was interested in stamping out heresy, and Galileo was obliged to recant. There is also an interesting story about how he claimed that his tormentors "doctored" evidence against him.
As the French have said for centuries, "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."
A contemporary techo-fib equivalent could be, "my blog was hacked".
Also, and still with reference to Galileo, he claimed that the sun did not orbit the Earth. One might call that a negative proposition, and one can never prove a negative. That is a link about black swans and unicorns.
With regard to unicorns in the fossil record (completely off topic), wouldn't the premise rely on the supposition that unicorn horns are made of a substance that can be petrified? Rhino horns are made of keratin (like hair and finger nails), and does not fossilize well.
Similarly, one probably cannot prove that one medical precaution --that almost everyone takes-- prevents a certain outcome (death) because there is a dearth of identical subjects who abstained from that precaution.
High time I got to the copyright-related legal blog on the Law Review by Benjamin E. Marks for Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP which is a masterful analysis of free speech and false speech, and if, when, and whether there is a difference.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6507e780-1a6e-4cb7-9788-a314ea6d2697
It is about free speech and media freedom, which was of great interest to certain authors' associations a few years ago, but much less so since 2021, and discusses what are--and are not--protected forms of speech, such as the apocryphal ejaculation of "Fire!" (verbal sense) in a crowded theater, newsgathering, FOIA, protection of witnesses or news sources, suing news publications, and more.
Angela Hoy of WritersWeekly has some fascinating news on media freedom, which you can check out here: https://writersweekly.com/in-the-news/042923?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=writersweekly-com-112119_67And, did you know that it is possible that your blog has been used without your permission or knowledge to develop AI? Scott Rosenberg of Axios elaborates:
https://www.axios.com/2023/04/24/ai-chatgpt-blogs-web-writing-training-data
Yes indeed. If someone were to ask chatwhateveritis to write a love scene in the matter of Rowena Cherry, where would the bot have got the vocabulary and candence? Not that love scenes are my forte. I would not recommend copying them.
Legal blogger Richard L. Hathaway of the tongue-twister legal firm Kane Russsell Coleman Logan PC explains the perils of using AI (as previously suggested) and then trying to copyright your enhanced work.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=52e40b3c-ad2f-4375-a451-6ffb8d6421f6
All the best,
Rowena Cherry
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment