揭秘法制新闻诈骗女子事件，如何预防此类骗局

一、揭秘法制新闻诈骗女子事件，如何预防此类骗局

近期，一起涉及法制新闻的诈骗女子事件引发了广泛关注。在该案中，一名女子以参与制作法治类新闻为名，通过散布谣言和虚假消息来骗取他人的钱财。这一事件不仅揭示了当前社会中存在的法制新闻乱象，也给我们带来了对于如何预防此类骗局的思考。

案件回顾

根据警方调查，这名女子在社交媒体和互联网平台上发布了大量虚假的法治类新闻，用来诱骗不明真相的群众。她利用民众对于法律问题的关注度，打着揭露社会不公和保护公众利益的幌子，引导人们前往指定的网站进行捐款。这一行为直接涉及到法律诈骗、造谣传谣等多个犯罪行为。

法制新闻乱象

法制新闻是社会发展的重要组成部分，它旨在公正客观地报道与法律有关的事件和问题。然而，随着新闻产业的发展，一些人开始利用法制新闻进行非法牟利和谋取他们个人利益的行为也逐渐增多。

首先，部分媒体和自媒体人士通过发布虚假新闻、夸大事实、捏造故事等手段来吸引眼球和获取流量。这种做法不仅误导公众，也损害了社会的公信力。

其次，一些人通过编造法律问题和案例来制造焦虑和恐慌，然后以提供法律咨询或解决方案的名义收费。这种行为不仅伤害了受害者的利益，也严重侵犯了正当的法律服务市场。

最后，还有一些人利用法制新闻进行诈骗行为。他们以传播法律知识、提供法律援助等为名义，实际上是通过引诱他人捐款、购买虚假服务等方式骗取钱财。

预防法制新闻诈骗

面对法制新闻诈骗，我们应该保持警惕并采取一些措施来预防成为受害者。

首先，我们要提高对于法制新闻真实性的辨别能力。在阅读或接触到涉及法律问题的新闻时，要注重查证来源、比较多方观点、辨别内容的合理性。不要轻易相信、传播或参与捐赠相关信息。可以通过查看权威媒体、官方机构或专业律师的解读来获取真实可靠的信息。

其次，保护个人隐私和财产安全是重要的防范措施。不要随意在未验证的网站上提交个人信息和金钱，避免成为不法分子的目标。此外，定期检查个人银行账户和社交媒体账户的安全性，避免个人信息被盗用。

最后，加强社会监督和法律维权能力是我们共同应该努力的方向。对于发现的法制新闻乱象和诈骗行为，可以及时向相关部门举报，也可以通过组织和参与法治教育活动来提高公众的法律意识和基本权益的保护能力。

通过上述措施的综合应用，我们可以提高自身的风险意识，有效防范法制新闻诈骗的发生，为社会的法制建设做出有益的贡献。

二、为什么世界每天死亡几十万人都没有多少新闻关注，而一旦发生恐怖事件死几个人，所有媒体都要搞个大新闻？

阅读赏析：为啥摔死在浴缸里和被恐怖分子杀掉不是一回事

感谢@萌才是正义的翻译。（见最后）

A False Comparison Between Terror Deaths and Bathtub Deaths

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/a-false-comparison-between-terror-deaths-and-bathtub-deaths/244457/

Via Mike Allen, a Los Angeles Times story raises interesting questions about the effectiveness of post 9/11 homeland security spending, but falls short but failing to question what has become a standard argument used by those who oppose heightened, and therefore more costly, security measures: the specious, "More people are killed by (fill-in-the-blank) than by terrorists, so why do we worry so much about terrorism?" argument.

The "fill-in-the-blank" in the LAT story is bathtub death, but I've also seen pool drownings, kitchen accidents, and gardening mishaps used to make the case that we overreact -- and overspend -- when protecting ourselves from terrorism. The story frames the question this way:

A decade after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, federal and state governments are spending about $75 billion a year on domestic security, setting up sophisticated radio networks, upgrading emergency medical response equipment, installing surveillance cameras and bombproof walls, and outfitting airport screeners to detect an ever-evolving list of mobile explosives.

But how effective has that 10-year spending spree been?

"The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It's basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year," said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.

"So if your chance of being killed by a terrorist in the United States is 1 in 3.5 million, the question is, how much do you want to spend to get that down to 1 in 4.5 million?" he said.

But Mueller's thesis fails to recognize is that a bathtub death is in most ways not equivalent in impact to a death caused by terrorists. The death of someone in a bathtub accident is obviously a terrible tragedy for that person's family and friends. But unlike a death caused by terrorism, a bathtub death has few, if any, political, economic, foreign policy, societal and constitutional ramifications. In other words, a spate of bathtub deaths might cause state and federal governments to seek stronger regulation of bathtub manufacturers, and the bathtub industry might be forced to design safety features whose cost might be passed on to the consumer. But that's about it.

Deaths caused by terrorism, on the other hand, can have a profound effect on society and the economy. The deaths of ten people in bathtub accidents won't cause people to fear leaving their homes; but imagine the impact of 10 deaths in a terrorist bombing of a shopping mall, or a movie theater. And imagine if it happens more than once. The economic impact could be devastating; the impact on the emotional health of parents and children would be profound. Bathtub deaths are preventable through individual action and self-awareness. The average citizen, on the other hand, is relatively helpless in the face of a car-bombing, mass shooting, or hijacking (yes, the passengers rose up on one of the four airplanes hijacked on September 11th, and they prevented mass death below, but they still died themselves).

And consider the impact of terrorism on the Constitution, and on our collective self-conception as an open and free society. Just look at the stress placed on our constitutional freedoms by 9/11. A sustained terror campaign, even one with much lower death tolls than 9/11, would inevitably lead to the curtailment of our rights. Bathtub deaths have no such ramifications. Terrorism places terrible stress on intergroup relations; bathtub deaths do no such thing. And an effective terrorist, in this age of easy access to chemical and biological agents, could cause death on a scale much larger than 9/11. We will never see a dramatic spike in the number of bathtub drownings, but we could very well see such a spike in terror-caused deaths. Most people intuitively understand the difference between a bathtub's ability to cause mass mayhem, and a terrorist's ability to destablize society.

On the story's larger point, that much of our spending is wasteful, duplicative, and poorly-targeted, you're not going to get much of an argument from me. What is needed is better, smarter, spending, not necessarily a massive letting-down of our guard. Terrorism's capacity to affect the functioning of our society, and to fray the bonds that tie citizens together, and to cause mass-casualty events that would dwarf 9/11, makes it a unique and dangerous challenge.

恐怖袭击死亡和浴缸死亡之间的错误对比洛杉矶时报报道提出了一个有趣的问题。有关公示的911国土安全费用开支的有效性，这些钱很昂贵，但是却没有达到预期效果，而且也没法回答那些反对增加的人所提出的标准的争论。既然有那么多人都死于（某原因）而不是所谓的恐怖袭击，那我们为啥还要那么担心恐怖主义呢？这个报道里的某原因填写的是浴缸摔死。当然我们也知道有游泳池溺水，厨房事故，园艺事故，这些原因同样适用这里，当我们为保护自己免受恐怖主义超支的时候而对这些原因也过度反应。这个报道的大体框架是这样的：自从2011年9月11日的世贸中心和五角大楼的恐怖袭击发生后的十年，联邦和州政府每年在国土安全方面花费750亿美元，用于建立复杂的无线网络，升级紧急医疗急救设备，安装监控摄像头和防爆墙，投入机场安检人员来探测每一个可能在不停移动的炸药。但这十年里的疯狂花费到底效果如何呢？全世界范围里被穆斯林恐怖主义基地组织杀害的人数在战争地区可能也就几百人，基本上是和每年在浴缸里死的人的数量是相同的。这句话出自俄亥俄州立大学的约翰米勒教授，他曾经发表过大量有关恐怖主义威胁和打击恐怖主义的支出之间的平衡的文章。他又说了，你在美国可能被恐怖分子杀害的几率是350万分之一，那你愿为了把这个几率下降到450万分之一花费多少钱呢？但是他的论文没有认识到的是，大多数情况下，浴池死亡的影响是不等效于恐怖袭击死亡的。在浴室里的死亡事件，显然对于家人和朋友是一件非常可怕的悲剧。同恐怖主义造成的死亡不同，一个人的浴池死亡通常是几乎不涉及影响政治，经济，外交政策，社会和宪法。换句话讲，如果发生大量的浴室死亡，可能会导致国家和联邦政府寻求加强监管浴缸制造商，浴缸行业可能会因此被迫设计安全功能，同时这个成本是转嫁给消费者的，但也仅此而已罢了。恐怖主义造成的死亡另一方面，可能对社会和经济产生深远的影响。十个人在浴缸里的事故都不会引起人们担心离开家园，但是想一想，在一个购物中心或者电影院爆发造成十人死亡的恐怖爆炸事件。想象一下，如果发生了不止一次。这对经济的影响是毁灭性的，对父母和孩子的感情与健康的影响也是深远的。通过个人行动和自我意识，浴缸死亡是可以避免的。但是普通民众在面对突然发生的枪击事件和劫持事件（911事件中被劫持的飞机客户，他们努力阻止大规模死亡事件的发生，可是他们也还是逝世了）是无助的。当我们从宪法层面考虑恐怖主义的影响时，所谓的集体的概念是一个开放自由的社会。看看911事件给我们的宪法自由所施加的压力，甚至连续不断的死亡人数低于911事件的恐怖事件，也将不可避免地缩减我们的权利。浴缸死亡可没有这样的后果。恐怖主义可怕是对于人们群际关系的压力，而浴缸死亡可没这样的事情。这个时代的某些厉害的恐怖分子，利用化学和生物药剂，造成的死亡规模可能比911更大。我们永远不会看到一个偶然浴缸摔伤数量的增加，但很有可能看到越来越多的恐怖袭击的死亡。大多数人是要直观区分了解浴缸死亡导致大规模混乱的能力和恐怖分子扰乱社会的能力。这篇报道最大的论点是，我们的花费是重复的，浪费的，目标不明确，从我的观点你可以知道我们并不会得到多少好处。现在需要的是更好的，更巧妙的，花费，不下降的警惕。恐怖主义影响我们社会功能的能力，以及令群体紧张都将我们都紧密联系在一起，并且因为他会造成一些使911看着渺小的更大的杀伤性事件，这都使它成为一个独特又危险的挑战。