Who decides what's fake? The Ministry of Truth?

I'm afraid that the first amendment allows all kinds of fake news and alternative facts. It's ultimately up to the people to decide what to listen. We decide whether to follow truth and prosper or believe falsehoods and suffer.

There is a Freedom of the Press in America, so it would be unconstitutional. I hate fake news as much as the next guy, but this would accomplish nothing and would be unconstitutional. Just saying.

This measure ignores the underlying attempts of the current administration to disassemble the Constitution. Do not do it!

We need to retire the phrase "Alternative Facts". It's nothing more than Orwellian Newspeak for "blatant lies". There is such a thing as scientific research and objective fact. There are matters, like climate change and medical science, on which one's opinion is irrelevant. It scares me that people seem to think they can create whatever reality suits their agenda.

No. The government has no place interfering with free speech. We, as Americans, must be responsible enough to diligently search the facts of a matter and decide for ourselves. We've already become to lazy to work and want the government to provide for us financially, now we're too lazy to think for ourselves and want the government to do that for us too. This is bad news people.

What we NEED in America is a truly FREE AND UNBIASED press! The MSM today is reminiscent of the Orwellian newspeak of "1984." The LAST thing we need is for Big Brother to control what we read, see, hear, and/or say! And if you quit dumbing down our students and teach them to be analytical and actually think for themselves, they'll be more able to figure out what's fact and what's fiction - without government interference! As for "alternative facts," hey, there are almost always two sides (at LEAST) to every story! Let people hear all sides, like the jury in a trial, and decide if any of them have merit! Damned Democommies want to control EVERYTHING! Everything but themselves, that is! Countable member Matthew C. posted an excellent opinion: "Government already puts out information it deems "official". For politicians to start giving the impression of "endorsing" facts seems like the establishment circling the wagons. They would be saying, "There is no other point of view than this." Now think about that and how North Korea, China and Russia control their media. This would set a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope to Orwell and double-speak. The reason we have a vibrant political sphere is the free exchange of ideas, no matter how "interesting" they may turn out to be. You should be able to say what you want, without government suppression, as long as you are not calling on direct physical violence to someone/group. Otherwise you are instituting a form of thought control." Another good opinion comes from Countable member PhillipStearns: "It doesn't so much need to condemn them as it does combat them. And that apparent from watching Clapper and Yates testify before the Senate subcommittee. Clapper specifically was mentioning his body of knowledge as coming from media reports. But media reports are not always complete or accurate and often times facts, if they are even directly addressed, are presented in a way that distorts the truth. I see this happening on both ends of the political spectrum, from Obama's death panels to rape as a preëxisting condition. We have a media environment so saturated and so dependent on advertising dollars that it is the least independent it has ever been. All sides are taking advantage of the situation and the products are as benign as accidentally repeating minor inaccuracies to presenting warped speculation as factual reporting, to flat out lying about a situation with the intent of not only misleading the public, but to sow doubt as to the existence of any kind of reliable journalism. There is an information war happening within the US on all levels, from government to civil and it must be called out as such. Fake news is code for "it doesn't jibe with my opinion." Opinions have their place: in the op ed section. Today the facts are obscured by our right omissions and replaced with alternative facts. Social media is being used to disseminate both misinformation and disinformation by organized groups of actors. Facebook published a white paper on this, using the term Information Ops. Brannon's pronouncement that the media is the opposition should be taken seriously as a pronouncement of war; a psychological war carried out through the Internet, targeting media organizations, journalists and citizens over social media."

What Orwellian nightmare of a politician proposed this?? Are we going to rely on a Ministry of Truth to police the press? Who defines "fake"? CNN and others reported that Iraq had WMDs in 2003. Was that fake news? They conjured up a fake sob story about babies being pulled out of incubators. Is government propaganda fake news? Is policing of thought crimes next? I vote we expel from Congress whichever would-be dictator proposed this on the grounds of trying to overturn freedom of the press.

If the House believes that Fake news is being presented to the public, then they should present the true facts. However, I have observed that a Democrat/Republican Debate on Obamacare brought out their facts that "if you like your plan, you can keep it. Or likewise with keeping your doctor, saving $2,500 on you plan, and at one point it wouldn't cover abortions. Now as we look back for facts, it was the Republican who spoke the truth on a failing healthcare system we see and understand today. The truth just doesn't fall at your feet. The truth takes research and study to discern what is FAKE or TRUE. Learning history can certainly help in discerning the truth or you can just watch CNN TV who projected Hillary Clinton's presidency. Was this based on facts, or just wishful thinking. So when someone tells me that gravity pulls objects to the sky I may be somewhat skeptical.

Congress has actual work to do. This is a distraction.