So much to do when we oust these chucklefucks: add "fix the media" to the growing list, e.g., re-enact a fairness doctrine, but stronger, develop (and enforce) ownership strictures to keep billionaires looking for favors away from any sort of news outlet. That's a start
There is no method to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and update it without violating the First Amendment.
This is the 21st century- if there is no method to accomplish what we need to do, we can create something new. Mankind can solve its problems, we have the ability but do we have the will?
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …” Why do you think trashing that and allowing the government to regulate speech and the press is a good idea that will solve problems?
Okay, if you believe free speech is absolute- If I cause a stampede in a crowd that gets people killed by screaming FIRE! am I guilty of anything??? All I did was ‘speak’, but people panicked and someone died So, that’s OK by you?
Sure - let’s go to the most extreme example. Let’s look at the Aurora theater shooting: people yelling about an active shooter did not cause a panic - the actual active shooter caused the panic. He was charged with many crimes - causing a panic was not one of them. This does not mean he can’t be
sued civilly and held civilly responsible, but it wasn’t a crime. Now, are you claiming something said on TV or the internet is going to cause a panic?
But you said free speech! That’s all I did, what did I do in civil law- disturb the peace? But that can be speech also. And are you saying if it’s said on TV, that makes in different from free speech? I think your absolute free speech idea has some serious difficulties 😆
I’m sorry these concepts are so hard for you to grasp.
Exactly what ‘concept’ am I missing, Professor?? That absolute free speech is impossible in a civilized society? What point are you trying so desperately to assert?? Insulting my intelligence does Not convince me. Try logic this time, maybe?????
Your inability to grasp simple concepts is a you problem, not a me problem. You have access to search engines - use them.
Unless you're talking about directly threatening an individual or a very small, specific group, the test is if the speech is "intended to and likely to incite *imminent* lawless action". Where "imminent" is defined to be basically "right now". 1/
Nothing you see on Fox News or whatever comes close to meeting that test. And, for that matter, very very little anywhere else meets that test either. 2/2
Seriously? The people shouting in that theater, are exhibiting free speech? And not trying to avoid getting shot by a madman? Please explain what free speech has to do with this?
You’re the one who brought up Schenck.
We have a First Amendment. Read it.
2/ any less a stricture on 1st Amendment rights than yelling fire in a crowded theater. Saying there is no method to fix the damage done by the likes of Fox and News Max is tantamount to obeying in advance. The effort needs be made.
Learn to thread your skeets. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is protected speech. The idea that it isn’t is dicta from a case about protesting the draft that was overruled 50+ years ago. Allowing Trump to regulate the press is obeying in advance. Protecting the Constitution is not.
You are very uneducated on this subject matter.
Willful distortion of the news, if not outright fabrication, should be subject to current FCC rules against broadcasting distortion of the news, however, haven't heard that this rule has been applied in a while. Similarly, why wouldn't willful dissemination of outright lies and distortions be 1/
What part of “Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; …” do you think allows for a government ministry of truth?
You are very confused.