Mostly in the 80s. Rules that had limited foreign ownership of media outlets were repealed (crucial to the growth of NewsCorp), and then limits on the number of outlets that could be owned. The end of the Fairness Doctrine helped spread right-wing radio (though not Fox News channel).
Jfc
???
The Fairness Doctrine constitutionally could not apply to Fox News or any other cable channel.
Yes, see my final parenthetical.
'Constitutionally'!?!? You gotta explain that one. We'll spot you, just to cut to the chase, 'as written'. The Fairness Doctrine was, by reason of the 'as written' notion, obsolete as re cable communications, given, inter alia, technological changes. That issue is Red Herring.
There is no verbiage to update the Fairness Doctrine to get around the First Amendment.
Given the Fairness Doctrine was held constitutional, as written/as applied, a 1A argument, without more, fails out of the box. If you want to give it another, please do. NB: The line between what is/what is not Free Speech is in flux. Hint: Stay away from absolutes and be contextually sensitive.
There was a lot more to why the Fairness Doctrine was found narrowly constitutional - namely the scarcity of the public airwaves. See Red Lion v FCC. Cable is not scarce.
Don't underestimate Judges/Justices to rationalize their decisions to find an outcome. If you focus on the rationalizations, you begin the chase dicta. That is error. The issue is and remains Free Speech vs Speech. Scarcity/lack thereof not relevant.
What do you think this mythological distinction is between “Free Speech vs Speech”?
I gotta be honest, I’m not sure that legal history or arguments are going to register with this interlocutor.
Free Speech is not regulatable. Speech is.
Yeah - no. That is not a distinction that exists in the law.
See, inter alia, www.uscourts.gov/about-federa.... Nota bene: That inter alia a) contains a lot of shit and b) hasn't been fully or finally figured out. Have a great day.
Exactly.
