Lies masquerading as news is however against the law -- faux got around that by exploiting the stupidity of federal judges.

Nope. Most lies are protected speech. Defamation and fraud are exceptions, but they have very specific elements.

Not when they're claiming to be news. Opinion is, but news is not. One of faux' tricks is to show actual news... At night when no one watching, and in court claim that it's all bullshit anyway. Literally

-- faux used "no reasonable person would believe anything our anchors say" as a defense in court... And since american judges are mostly chosen for their stupidity, that worked in court.

No - they said reasonable people know Carlson is an opinion show. MSNBC used the same defense of Maddow. And it has nothing to do with judicial “stupidity” and everything to do with the actual law.

Wrong, on both counts. Are you a republican? Faux news junkie? That's about the only kind of person who would attempt such an idiotic bit of both sidesism.

Yes - there is only one kind of person who cares about facts - and it’s not Republicans, Fox News junkies, or you.

You know, these are objective facts which are trivially-findable with a web search and if you actually cared about facts and thus did so, you would find both quotes from the judge's decision in the Carlson/Fox case saying exactly what you're denying 1/

and articles about the Maddow/MSNBC case that quote the judge in *that* case saying basically the same things as the judge in the Carlson/Fox case. But since you so obviously don't care about the facts or the truth I expect you never actually did so. 2/2

Fox News has never claimed they are not news. See also:

FOX News is a **cable channel**, not a broadcast station. They do not carry an FCC license and are not subject to FCC regulations or oversight.

Going forward any company calling itself "news" should be enforced to share facts only. Opinions are like beliefs to ppl like me irrelevant. Unless it's from a professional in the related field. That's the only opinion I'll gaf about.

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;…”

Such a mandate would be a blatant violation of the First Amendment....

The 1st amendment was not intended to be a permission slip to say whatever 1 wanted. It was to protect us from holding our reps accountable for their actions. The intent is what matters.

That...is a profoundly weird interpretation of the first amendment. Or you mistyped something. Because the intent of the first amendment is to protect speech from government overreach

And the only time government overreaches is when that speech makes the government look bad.

Uh, no. It's when the government decides to censor speech it doesn't like, regardless of whether it makes the government look bad or not.

Does it say anything about how the First Amendment regulates NEWS in any way??

1st off, "News" is a word the FFs likely didn't know or use. Trying to compare today's age with wording from 250yrs ago is like trying to run a NASCAR race while riding in a 250yo horse drawn wagon. And now we argue semantics... With a language barrier preventing ppl on the l being able to..

... communicate with ppl on the R. When both sides want the same thing. So please explain to me how your retorts are helpful?

SAY WHAT?? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let me ask you, what does what you pasted all mean? What's the intent? To hold monsters in gov accountable? This is a waste of my time. Have an amazing day.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a cracker. You don’t think the Founding Fathers knew what “news” is?

All the free information available online and someone actually says something that idiotic. SMDH.

This is a JOKE, right??

You're out of your mind. Or just ignorant. www.etymonline.com/search?q=news 'The meaning "tidings, intelligence of something that has lately taken place" is from early 15c. '

Well we need something that does. We need to stop allowing politicians to mince words cuz it's become a language barrier now due to how long it's been going on for. The FD at least made it so the other side was presented. Or supposed to be anyways.

Your issue appears to be with the First Amendment.

Our FOS was never a permission slip to say w/e we wanted. It was to protect us from holding our reps accountable for their corrupt actions. Now we have to use it along with our Freedom of protest to fix it all.

1A is certainly NOT limited to speech regarding corrupt actions of government officials. Speech pertaining to the actions of the government (whether corrupt or not) is only one form of speech protected by 1A.

In order to understand everything you have to understand the purpose behind it. The purpose behind the freedom of speech was to hold our elected officials accountable. Because they hated politicians.

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, was a politician.

Whatever the original motive, it is absolutely not limited to that. There is no judicial ruling that says it does not apply to anything other than speech about the government. To the contrary, many 1A cases have not involved speech pertaining to the government.

Lying to ppl on the street very rarely leads to ppl having to fear dor their lives. Holding politicians accountable can bring threats to ones lives. Forget what the courts have argued over the last 250yrs. It was to hold our politicians accountable. I'm aware of Madison btw. If alive today he'd...

....agree that the fix to all of this is a seperation of beliefs and state. Beliefs being anything not proven by good science. It was him who professed the seperation of church and state. That got muddled and because of that we have to seperate beliefs out. In order to clean it all up.

No. The purpose of freedom of speech was so you can speak freely. Do you think lies didn’t exist when the First Amendment was written?

Lying to other people doesn't really bring about life-threatening consequences though. So why would we need protection from that? I understand not everyone is going to understand what I know and that's okay. The fact is politicians were supposed to hold their words true and they didn't. Then...

Really? Have you heard of MAHA? Of course it brings about life-threatening consequences. Anti-vaxxers? Of course that brings about life-threatening consequences. We don't understand what you think you know because what you think you know is flat-out wrong. Never were "politicans supposed to hold

their words true" under 1A. There are numerous court decisions holding that lying in campaigns can't be restricted and a SCOTUS case in 2012 that said the same.

Attacking me is what monsters want you to do. Goodbye

... We allowed them to get away with it. Now the system is the monster that's making us all sick. It's why we have all that we do. My question for you along with everyone else is are you going to keep letting it kill us?

It’s cute you think allowing politicians to determine who gets to say what is going to make things better.

Politicians will never make the system better. It's already ☠️. And they've been oppressing us with their unjust laws for generations now. All of those laws are why we have the plague in our streets. The only way to solve everything is to build a better system. 1 where monsters can't manipulate it

If you think politicians held their words true in the days of the Founding Fathers you should go back and read what they were saying about each other.

Of course they didn't. So why the hell were we groomed into thinking that this was a perfect democracy? They never claimed it was perfect. They claimed it was an experiment. Interesting thing about experiments is that you have to test for all fail points before you can claim something as perfect.

The system they built died. It's officially dead. They really didn't care about the system. They cared about their happiness. & if we don't show the same care for our own happiness we too will die with it. Our grandparents told us it was perfect.

Your whole premise is based on what the Founding Fathers meant by the First Amendment but the barest examination proves you incorrect.

Freedom of speech and the press is absolutely permission to say what we want with a few very narrow exceptions. And yes - we can use it to hold elected officials accountable but it is a little wild to think they should be passing laws about what they can and cannot say.