Snopes is it Valid Free Speech?

Snopes claims to do fact checks. They name the source. That is valid because its important to know the origin of a claim, in order to have the option to look into it as a reader.

What they are doing then is utterly ridiculous in the given context. They start characterising the source. This is so out of place here that it falls flat on its face. If you are concerned about the facts you don't characterise the source (Pink-slime journalism), and they are doing this as their very first step. Absolutly shameless.

In their characterisation of the source they make use of partisan lingo. This makes it even more puzzling. This serves no function in a 'fact check' but to poison the well.

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The etymology of the phrase lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the invading army's strength.

The term they use in this context must work under one of those two assumptions:

1. It works under the theory that local news outlets conspire with other news outlets to push a certain point.

It would be more transperant to call this the Pink-slime journalism conspiracy theory then

2. It just so happens that news outlets report such information and other outlets pick up on that information and stand by it, while the information is totally wrong. And it just so happens that this happens largely on one side of the spectrum of political thought (within the frame of hermetic dialectic at least).

In this case you either have a really strong case with strong compelling evidence, that proves that this is an organic phenomenon or reconsider your own position.

Either way, poisioning the well while posing as a authoritative fact checker is not valid.

But is it Valid Free Speech under the contemporary understanding?
Yes. It is ridiculous, but it is Valid Free Speech.

Full version and discussion here:


There are no comments to display.

Blog entry information

Last update

More entries in Personal Blogs

More entries from Creamu

General chit-chat
Help Users
    Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras: Of course, I only know a couple of people there, so I'm judging them by the looks and apparel themes