But that would still be a world in which 99.99% of videos are real. Someone could, of course, deep fake a liquor store's video in order to falsely implicate someone in a robbery, but unless there is evidence that someone had a motive to do so, why would they? And the analogy to hearsay doesn't really work, because hearsay is excluded not simply because it is too easy to fake, but rather because the original declarant is not subject to cross-examination, and so there is no way to examine the reliability of his statement. Indeed, the fact that I can lie on the stand about what you said (i.e., it is easy for me to fake the evidence of your statement) is irrelevant to the hearsay exclusion, because I am subject to cross-examination re whether I have faked the evidence. After all, if I testify, a) "Joe said that he robbed the bank" and b) "Joe said that thought the dead guy was sleeping with his wife." neither claim is inherently more or less likely to be a fabrication by me. But #a is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule (or IIRC, not hearsay at all under the federal rules), but #b is not.
Regardless, there is an interesting (and refreshingly brief, for a law review article) discussion of the issue here which you might find interesting; the author argues for raising the standard for admissibility of such evidence.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
But that would still be a world in which 99.99% of videos are real. Someone could, of course, deep fake a liquor store's video in order to falsely implicate someone in a robbery, but unless there is evidence that someone had a motive to do so, why would they? And the analogy to hearsay doesn't really work, because hearsay is excluded not simply because it is too easy to fake, but rather because the original declarant is not subject to cross-examination, and so there is no way to examine the reliability of his statement. Indeed, the fact that I can lie on the stand about what you said (i.e., it is easy for me to fake the evidence of your statement) is irrelevant to the hearsay exclusion, because I am subject to cross-examination re whether I have faked the evidence. After all, if I testify, a) "Joe said that he robbed the bank" and b) "Joe said that thought the dead guy was sleeping with his wife." neither claim is inherently more or less likely to be a fabrication by me. But #a is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule (or IIRC, not hearsay at all under the federal rules), but #b is not.
Regardless, there is an interesting (and refreshingly brief, for a law review article) discussion of the issue here which you might find interesting; the author argues for raising the standard for admissibility of such evidence.
More options
Context Copy link