According to the FCC it applies to news and requires truth, while allowing opinion. That's pretty clear from the regulation itself. But like most laws in the Idiocracy, that law is almost never enforced, even when faux hosts used their platforms to incite violence.
They didn't "incite violence" legally under the Brandenburg v. Ohio standard. Further, I assume you are referring to Fox News, other cable channels, and maybe social media. However, the FCC doesn't regulate those mediums and can't apply that policy which applies to "broadcast stations."
Actually, some faux hosts did, and probably other extreme right wing media as well. Not that they'd ever be held accountable in the Idiocracy in any case, because the best outcome is that they buy their way out of it.
No, they did not under the Brandenburg standard, which is a very high standard that requires that it was the intent of the speaker to incite imminent (i.e. immediate) harm and that speech was likely to cause such imminent harm. SCOTUS has interpreted that very narrowly over the years.
Per my other posts re: Red Lion v. FCC, Miami Herald v. Tornillo, and Netchoice v. Moody, Congress cannot give FCC such authority to regulate cable channels as they are protected by 1A and aren't subject to the "unique" issues that led SCOTUS to allow the Doctrine for "broadcast stations."
Yes, cable media have been abusing that loophole to become propaganda machines. Given how corrupt the supreme court is, having given permission to politicians to accept bribes from anyone they feel like taking money from, that loophole is not surprising. Neither are the results.
It's not a "loophole." As I've shown, regulation of the media has ALWAYS been prohibited under 1A. Regulation of "broadcast stations" was a limited exception based on the "unique" nature of that medium. AND it's the liberal Justices that have made this clear. Red Lion and Miami Herald ...
were decided unanimously when SCOTUS was at its most liberal. And the Moody decision was led by the liberal Justices, including Kagan, who wrote the opinion. The most corrupt Justices, Alito and Thomas, did not sign on to that opinion. You are misinformed on the legal aspects here.
Further, every private entity, even "news media" has a right to be a "propaganda machine" if they so choose. Propaganda is merely information disseminated to promote a specific cause, often a legal one. It's often biased and/or misleading but the expression of a political opinion is propaganda.
And as has been made clear in SCOTUS precedent, including by Kagan last summer in Moody, every private entity has a right to express their opinion without interference from the gov't by being compelled by the gov't to carry other viewpoints. And that's not even getting to the larger intrusion ...
that would be regulations requiring them to publish accurate facts, which as shown, which would be against 1A principles except for those limited and long-standing 1A exceptions.
To be clear on this matter. Regulation of "broadcast stations" was not the rule. It was a narrow exception to a very long-standing rule that prohibits regulation of the media. That rule is 1A.
The rule is about things like intentionally misleadingly editing footage of an event, doctoring quotes, and so forth. Not making bogus statements like "climate change is a lie".
And that bogus statement is still an opinion. An irrational opinion that is based on ignorance and/or misunderstanding of the findings, but its' still an opinion and would be protected.
Truth is not a regulation, as it would be in violation of the First Amendment. Show me where it says TRUTH is required
It doesn't violate the first amendment at all, because it's limited to NEWS media, not everyone else. That's the difference that the brainless deniers who clearly can't read invariably choose to ignore in their zeal to deny that news media are news media.
Yes, it would. The NEWS media has the same rights as everyone else. It's why SCOTUS has struck down application of the Fairness Doctrine (or similar laws) to every other medium except for "broadcast stations." Further, the only reason the Doctrine (which did not apply to the "news") was ...
permitted on "broadcast stations" was due to the "unique" scarcity problems plaguing that medium which required the gov't to determine who could broadcast and who couldn't. As a result of receiving that "frequency monopoly," the stations were required to provide airtime to opposing viewpoints.
As SCOTUS said in Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the press (in that case newspapers) do lie, but 1A prohibits gov't regulation of the press.
Further, in US v. Alvarez, SCOTUS held that 1A does protect false speech, unless it falls into long-standing exceptions like defamation, because to do otherwise would give the gov't too much power that they could abuse. Shit, Trump would definitely abuse it with the "fake news" outlets he hates.
The only brainless thought is that "news media" has lesser 1A rights than any other media or private entity. In Netchoice v. Moody and other cases, SCOTUS has made clear that they all have the same 1A rights, subject to limited exceptions. And there is no "news media" exception.
Wrong. Media do have different standards than everyone else. Without those standards, the media becomes nothing but a propaganda machine, which is exactly what the US legacy media have become.
No, I'm absolutely correct. The media does NOT have different legal standards than everyone else does. I've pointed out the cases that make that clear. Plus, when 1A was ratified, the media was just as much as a "propaganda machine." It was just as biased and full ...
of misinformation as it is now. Thomas Jefferson famously complained that the well-informed citizen was one who DIDN'T read the newspapers. But he completely defended 1A prohibiting prohibition of the media.
The news distortion rule doesn't apply to "news media", whatever that even is. It applies to the broadcast of news events by individual stations. And only applies to "deliberate distortion" of a "significant event".