Gen-X, Entrepreneur, Writer, Gamer and K-Drama fan. Once was a lawyer, but now am found!
228 followers 63 following 1,778 posts
view profile on Bluesky
This post is incredibly misleading. A FEW are going viral b/c they are well done, the overwhelming majority are garbage and clog up systems with very few views. What they are grappling with is how to stop the onslaught of uploads, while keeping the cream.
Damn.. she was easily beatable. Gonna be hard to find someone as unlikeable as her.
Or don't read it.
Read the article I gave you.
And yet... "The Sedition Act of 1798"
Which means that stating it couldn't have been is incorrect, as it was a big question, which is why they lobbied so hard for the 1996 Act.
Oh dear god... the first line... "The 1996 Telecommunications Act enabled the consolidation of both the media and telecommunications industries"
Again, this is a red herring and entirely dishonest to keep bringing it up since it has been completely dismissed as a part of this discussion.
Saying they couldn't have is incorrect, b/c it is not known.
Well, the answer is that the first amendment doesn't apply here, no matter how much you want to go back and litigate a non-existent case from the late 80's early 90s.
Incorrect.
Incorrect.
Now you are just lying about what i said???
Incorrect
Incorrect.
Then why spend millions lobbying??? They could have spent far less just going forward if the case was so clear. They may have gotten Citizen's United out of it.
Yes, yes, yes, same circular argument on a moot point to prove nothing.
Again, back in circles to the argument that might have worked pre-1996. But, we don't know, will never know, b/c Clinton just cleared the way for media consolidation.
www.economicliberties.us/our-work/ctl...
Sure you don't.
Again, you are trying to use arguments that would have been tried, but for the passage of the 1996 Act, lobbied for by the companies looking to consolidate... and back in the same circle we go.
Because it applies.
This isn't about the fairness doctrine at all.
Then why wait and spend millions lobbying?
Yes
No
The one you whined about saying "but they don't mention fox news."
Back to Red Lion, which doesn't apply here. You lost the script.
The unknown was whether it would be applied to providers and what channels they carried. No one knew the answer, which is why they lobbied so hard for the Act.
Read the article I gave you.
Here's the problem.. you're making the argument for something that became moot with the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. They could have gambled and hoped SCOTUS created a new law like they did in Citizens United, but they didn't risk it.
Then why spend millions lobbying for the 1996 act, if it was already solved??? They wanted clarity.
NewsCorp
Again, it was an either/or with newspapers and broadcast.
I've already said that, but as you know companies don't love to throw large amounts of money at things that may not pass regulatory barriers.
CNN launched in 1980. Other companies with wide ownership interests lobbied for and waited for the act to pass.
1A didn't stop existing ownership rules, because it isn't regulating content. It's regulating ownership.
Actually, it was, since they didn't have solid test cases and no one wanted to risk that big of an investment on a theory. This is why NewsCorp and other corps lobbied so hard for the 1996 Act and waited until after it was a done deal to make their move.
Then why did so many companies wait until after the 1996 Act was passed? What possibly could be the reason?
That is EXACTLY what I have been saying... some chucklehead tried to bring the First Amendment into it, which is a distraction from the actual issue.
I've read it... you aren't comprehending the most simple part. It was never about "programming"... it's about OWNERSHIP. Everyone tread very carefully prior to the 1996 Act. AFTER the 1996 Act it was a consolidation free for all.
Now you moved onto social media sites??? Really??? I think you lost the script.
I said Title II and I meant title II.
No, your misunderstanding. I spent several years as an entertainment lawyer, although it was 95% movie and TV contracts and 5% internet regulation.
Since it doesn't apply, there is nothing to cite. This is about the relaxation of ownership rules.
The First Amendment doesn't apply here and never did... not sure why you keep trying to force it in.
*SIGH* I didn't say the article was about News Corp... it is about the relaxed ownership rules.
See Title II of the act.
No, it's not correct, because it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the regulations in play at the time.
Yet... But, the thing you are conveniently leaving out is that SCOTUS often speaks by not speaking.
You might want to ask them why they spent so much money lobbying for the act then and how it impacted the landscape. www.economicliberties.us/our-work/ctl...
So they ARE still expanding the exceptions. Cool.
I didn't.
Incorrect.
They owned newspapers, which made the provider issue murky.. which is why they waited until AFTER the passage of the 1996 Act. We studied this progression extensively in law school.
Incorrect.
Didn't matter.
Incorrect.
For the moment. What about revenge porn?
Incorrect. This relaxed the ownership rules, which made consolidation easier.
Incorrect.
NewsCorp owned newspapers all over the country. You weren't allowed to own both a broadcast station and a newspaper in a market. There was concern from Newscorp that due to the FCC regulation of providers that a "Fox News channel" could face regulatory hurdles.
#1) It did. #2) This isn't about content, it was about ownership rules and consolidation.
Of course they did and they were careful in what channels they carried, since the providers fell under the regulatory arm of the FCC and rules were NOT clear on how ownership regulations might impact providers. Which is WHY they lobbied for the 1996 act.
Incorrect. It was an either/or choice. You could own newspapers OR a broadcast station, but not both.
Yes and that is true. They are private companies and can stop carrying a channel b/c they don't like the content.
Yeah... providers bring the content to the end user and can pick and choose what content they decide to bring. If a provider feared content might cause regulatory problems, they could choose not to provide it. Thus, the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
1) Cable providers, as private companies, can do whatever they want. We were never talking about behest of the government. 2) There was no streaming in 1996.
Incorrect. You had a choice.. either/or, but not both.
It's not nearly as limited as you think and you are ONLY looking at cases they took and ignoring cases where they left rulings in place.
Yes, there is every reason when talking about WHY Fox News waited until AFTER the 1996 Telecommunications Act, because it is the reason.
Except that it doesn't prohibit almost all government action on speech. There are a shocking amount of exceptions.
That's already what I said. What point are you trying to make?
Not sure what point you are trying to make, besides noise.
Never said they could. Where are you coming up with this stuff?
That is incorrect. The ownership rules applied to BOTH print and broadcast (and potentially to cable, but that discussion was ended by the 1996 telecommunications act).
You do understand this contradicts what you originally said. The First Amendment is simply NOT absolute.
It includes cable providers, which the channels cannot exist w/o and under what you are trying to say the FCC cannot exist anyway.
How the first amendment is interpreted has changed radically over the years and will likely swing back to a more original approach in the future.
We aren't talking about states regulating print... of course they can't nor are we talking about altering ownership laws to compel speech. The fact is the ownership laws were relaxed in 1996. 1A doesn't even enter into this discussion.
When we, as a society, did nothing after Sandy Hook... many of us knew it would happen again, again, and again.
To #1) No and Yes. The cable provider can't easily edit a channel's content, but they can stop carrying a channel at anytime and can cite the content as the reason. To #2) What does streaming have to do with ANY of this?
Yes, I did.
#1) We were talking about law as it existed prior to 1996. #2) The first amendment, even under today's laws, doesn't give you the absolute right to say anything, anywhere, anytime. It never has and it never will.
I'm shocked it is that "popular".
Of course it applies. How could it not? Do you think anyone would invest in creating a cable channel if they don't know for sure if they can get it carried everywhere???
What are you babbling about? I explained the distinction.
So, you think there can be no rules applied to speech at all?? Is that your take?
No. Never said they were.
I have explained it already. Why are you so invested in making a simple mistake?
No, again, sorry.
I already have
What are you babbling about? Look... I'm sorry you misunderstood the impact of the 1996 Act... but you can just admit you misunderstood. You don't have to go full trump.
Already covered this.
None of it.
Cable providers PROVIDE cable channels. You can launch all the channels you want, but it won't mean anything if no one will carry them due to regulatory concerns. This is why they created the 1996 Act.
Oh dear god.. do you really not understand how this all works together? To run a cable channel you need providers.
www.fcc.gov/media/engine...
www.fcc.gov/media/engine...
www.fcc.gov/media/engine...