The problem always ends up being "who decides what is not true?".
Many people think that such a thing is not possible, or that the giving the Government such a power would be too much.
I personally think I could be persuaded to give such a power to the judiciary branch. I'd have to think about it a lot more before coming to a final decision, though.
We already have what is not true in Libel laws. And indeed in every branch of the law. (it's true he did rob the bank / breach the contract) for me the issue is not truth but laziness. No one decides if it is fake news or a breach of contract until the expensive court process is kicked off - someone wants to force the function to return. The cost is implying there is a sufficient loss (pace Peter Theiel) - and so it's worth deciding if this thing is true.
Truth is a slippery concept - and i would far rather - like you- we did not have a department deciding upfront what is or is not truth.
plus this idea might have the pleasing side effect of ministerial pronouncements being testable in court - although this is politics. Johnson's "350 million a week" bus was denounced as untrue from many quarters - but it was still a winning slogan - so perhaps the problem is still not fake news, but what people want to believe and why.
I don't think that juries decide what's true and what's not. They decide whether the evidence presented to them is sufficient to show that an event or events happened. My understanding is that even in defamation suits they are mostly trying to prove that person A said thing X about person C and then prove that person C was harmed because of it.
However, I am honestly not sure if it's just American first amendment indoctrination that makes me think that is significantly different than deciding what is true and what isn't.
> I don't think that juries decide what's true and what's not
That's literally what determining facts means.
> They decide whether the evidence presented to them is sufficient to show that an event or events happened
Yes, they determine the facts—what is true and not—by weighing the evidence.
> My understanding is that even in defamation suits they are mostly trying to prove that person A said thing X about person C and then prove that person C was harmed because of it.
They also decide whether X is true, and, if so, whether Person A claimed it with knoweldge of it's falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. But the other determinations are also decisions about what is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation cases. If that defense is presented, then a jury most certainly will attempt to determine if the defamatory statement is true.
And in almost any case, the jury is tasked with determining the credibility of witnesses.
> I don't think that juries decide what's true and what's not.
In a legal sense, that's exactly what they do. Juries are, by definition, deciders of fact, i.e. they decided what is legally true based on the evidence presented to them.
Whether legal "truth," epistemological "truth," and physical "truth" coincide is an entirely separate (and largely pointless) issue.
Many people think that such a thing is not possible, or that the giving the Government such a power would be too much.
I personally think I could be persuaded to give such a power to the judiciary branch. I'd have to think about it a lot more before coming to a final decision, though.