The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable channels.
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …” Amendment I
793 followers 398 following 12,293 posts
view profile on Bluesky
The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable channels.
Why would a wealthy, English-speaking, Christian, white man who had been in the U.S. for over a decade need to buy his citizenship? And why would he need to get rid of the Fairness Doctrine when it was not applicable to any of his media properties?
Which legacy media do you think have broadcast licenses?
It is insane how many people argue for the government to regulate what they say and hear.
Another thing people seem to forget: Limbaugh had a call in portion. That was an opportunity for “diverse viewpoints” to be expressed on air. Even if the callers were “plants” whose viewpoints were dragged it still fulfilled the requirements *for the station*.
Okay. And? How is what he said defamation?
He was exactly the same. The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation on holders of broadcast licenses: station owners. Limbaugh was “talent”, the Fairness Doctrine was not applicable to him. And it merely required the station provide some airtime for diverse viewpoints - it was not program by program.
I scrolled back through the convo and did not see a single defamatory comment about you - just lots of trespassing to feels.
Your inability to distinguish opinion from fact is a you issue - and does not make the statements defamatory.
So you’re saying Rittenhouse the murderer knew the people he murdered and actually committed premeditated murder?
No, historians will actually research the Fairness Doctrine and know what it actually did.
The Equal Time Doctrine is still in effect. And the continuation of the Fairness Doctrine would have changed nothing.
If you think a the Fairness Doctrine would change anything about this, I think you probably don’t know what the Fairness Doctrine actually did.
Privacy protections are important and need to be put in place and enforced. As for algorithms, see Gonzalez v. Google, Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton.
Are you saying Rittenhouse knew who his victims were before he shot them? Wouldn’t that make it premeditated murder?
The Fairness Doctrine would change nothing about this.
So much of that meme is wrong.
The meme is verifiably false. Murdoch was in the U.S. for over a decade before becoming a citizen. Presidents don’t grant citizenship. The Fairness Doctrine never prevented lies, never applied to print, and constitutionally could not apply to cable. Propaganda is protected by the First Amendment.
Except Limbaugh was on air with his hatred while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.
had a call in portion of his show - that met the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine for the *station* carrying him.
The Fairness Doctrine never required “rebuttal”. It required some airtime for diverse viewpoints. It was a regulation on the station, not individual shows. The diverse viewpoints did not have to be during the same program or even on the same day. And they did not require equal time. Limbaugh
And how would government regulation of the press be different/better?
start the comparison in 1960 instead of 1987? How many talk radio stations existed in 1987? And the article again completely ignores Limbaugh and others like him being on air while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. It is shoddy work. The author should be ashamed.
The Fairness Doctrine required diverse viewpoints, not “competing views”. Again, verifiable fact. No radio or TV station has the reach to “serve the entire nation”. Yep - verifiable fact. They skip over Meredith Corp v FCC. 1960 to 1995 is 35 years - not “almost overnight”. And why did they
The author of that piece did no research. Limbaugh was on air in CA growing audiences while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect. This is a verifiable fact. Broadcast licenses carry the requirement to be “public trustees” - that has nothing to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Again, verifiable fact.
Content regulations on cable, internet, and print violate the First Amendment. Compelled labels violate the First Amendment.
What you want would violate the First Amendment.
Yep
Only because of human nature 😔
The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable, internet, or print.
Reagan was slime, but nothing he did would have prevented this.
We are only doomed if we stop fighting. Fox News viewers can be reached but it takes conversations with them.
I’m sorry to hear about your MIL.
Limbaugh was on air growing audiences while the Fairness Doctrine was in effect.
You claim to want “just and honest news” but you get defensive when you find out your “facts” are not actually facts. Hm.
The meme is verifiably false. Murdoch was in the U.S. for over a decade before becoming a citizen. Presidents don’t grant citizenship. The Fairness Doctrine never prevented lies, never applied to print, and constitutionally could not apply to cable. Propaganda is protected by the First Amendment.
The Fairness Doctrine never prevented lies and could not have constitutionally applied to cable.
It is not illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater - the idea that it is was dictated by in a case about protesting the draft. It was overturned 50+ years ago.
Fox News is not “state-run” - the government neither owns nor controls Fox News. Fox News is state ass-kissing television.
The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to Fox News and would change nothing about it.
No. If brought back it would have no impact on Fox News as Fox News is cable and the Fairness Doctrine was narrowly constitutional for application to broadcast.
We would be rich.
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to news, never prevented news making a profit, and never prevented lies.
Yeah - you should read what some of the Founding Fathers were printing in their newspapers about other Founding Fathers… And how do you propose to limit propaganda and “lies” without infringing the 1A?
No. They said Tucker was not news but was opinion and commentary and that he engaged in hyperbole.
The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to cable.
The news has never been prohibited from lying. You want something that never existed.
What you are suggesting is a violation of the First Amendment. You keep saying you don’t want the government regulating speech/saying what is or is not true, but have not presented a single alternative.
And I’m sure their geography and population density are exactly the same as the most rural of areas in the U.S. that still rely on AM for emergency notifications…
You cannot use push/SMS notifications if you are in an area with no cell service. And if *you’ve* never found it useful, well…
And in doing so suggested relaxing/removing a safety feature - which you are rightfully being dragged for.
Good news! They are treated the same! Generally protected speech.
And the idea that you should just carry a separate radio and hope it will work is so wild.
Even a very liberal SCOTUS would strike it down.
How would a call in portion of a show or a program at 3AM Sunday change anything?
Yes. Numerous times when I have needed accurate, up-to-date information on whether or not the bridge had flooded or if the pass was closed because of snow. It is a lot safer to go around initially instead of having to turn back.
I do not see the word “news”. Unless you think news and viewpoints are the same thing?
The range covers the needed area - which is a larger area than that covered by FM stations. So what would be the purpose of ending the mandate?
How many people didn’t die last year because they had AM radios?
I drive through numerous areas with signage to tune to a specific AM station for current road and weather conditions.
How is providing the content the audience wants not operating in the public interest? And you have clearly never driven through highly rural areas with signs telling you to tune into a specific AM station for road and weather conditions.
*unlucky lol!
So sad. 😞
Have you read the First Amendment?
How is mandating “you must have more local coverage because you spend more time than James likes on politics” not attacking something on ideological grounds? And people have to pack a radio and batteries if they want access to local emergency services such as potential road closures in the winter?
The Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with what news was covered or how.
How is regulating content not violating content neutrality? Since AM radio has proven to be more reliable in emergency situations, what is your solution for that should AM no longer be mandated in cars?
Why? What do you think the Fairness Doctrine did/would do?
Oh - and Carlson hasn’t been on Fox News for a couple of years now.
The Fairness Doctrine would change nothing about this. Reagan did not give Murdoch regular citizenship, never mind dual citizenship. Propaganda is protected by the First Amendment.
Exactly!
No. That is not what the Fairness Doctrine was for. And we do know because you can find and read the Fairness Doctrine and the associated case law.
Fox News has never called themselves “entertainment”. There is no legal distinction in the US between “news” and “entertainment”. The FCC has no authority over cable channels or cable channel content. Most lies are not defamation and are protected by the First Amendment.
Defamation is more than just a lie and most lies are protected by the First Amendment. See US v Alvarez.
Yes, true threats are actionable. How does that apply to this conversation?
No such statement was ever made.
What do you think the Fairness Doctrine did?
That is not what the Fairness Doctrine did nor could it without violating the First Amendment.
Who produces the wind turbines? If you have to look up the information because he did not name them it is not defamation.
Landlines, cell phones, satellite phones, computers, internet equipment… If the FCC could control content because the equipment is registered by them, we would all be fucked.
What do you think the Fairness Doctrine did?
So just trash the First Amendment?
There has never been a time when the news could not openly lie about politics. What you really miss is when you had no way to know if you were being lied to so didn’t have to think about it.
There is no legal distinction in the U.S. between “news” and “entertainment”. Do you think the wealthy should be able to silence speech they don’t like?
Do you understand the difference between equipment and content? You use equipment regulated by the FCC - does that mean they can control your speech?
Have you read the First Amendment?
Cable channels neither have nor need broadcast licenses and are not under the purview of the FCC.
Where in the Constitution does it say “rights of the informed”? What and whose rights *specifically* do you think have been violated?
Right? It’s so bizarre.
So then who would and how would it be enforced without government involvement?
Propaganda predates the printing press and existed in U.S. before the U.S. was the U.S.
Propaganda predates the printing press and existed in U.S. before the U.S. was the U.S.
So now that it affects your rights it’s a crisis?
Fox News is a symptom - not the cause.
I understand exactly how we reached this point - and the trajectory started long before Fox News. Fox News is a symptom - not the cause.
So violating the rights of some portion of the population was okay and not a constitutional crisis?
Where in the First Amendment does it mention “fair” or “reasonably inform”?
1) Who determines if what is said is or is not the “truth”? 2) Is this determination made before or after the comment/theory is presented? 3) See US v Alvarez.
So you have failed to follow the conversation?
