General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWith Murdock et al admitting that they lied to its audience, can't something be done by the FCC
by way of penalty, fines, or cancellation of Foxs license? Can a network maintain a FCC license and knowingly lie to the public or spread lies/false information with impunity?
waddirum
(976 posts)They have no authority over cable tv or internet streaming.
Cattledog
(5,897 posts)It's a Sat, Cable, Streaming, internet service.
CrispyQ
(36,225 posts)So they're allowed to lie, not only in what they report, but also in how they identify themselves. ???
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)whathehell
(28,968 posts)which, by the way, is not absolute. We have laws against things like libel, slander, crying "fire" in a
crowded, non-burning theater -- You get the idea.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)it's called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)What you apparently don't know is that it's not "absolute", as it contains exceptions of the type listed.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)I'm very well aware of the exceptions, the bottom line is that the govt. has zero authority to regulate the content of cable, satellite and the internet.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)Sorry, but it seemed you might. The current legal status of the internet, cable and satellite TV s not the "bottom line" as the law is a living thing and it's interpretation can change over time.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)The bottom line at this time is that the FCC has zero content control over those pay per view platforms and will more than likely remain that way, rightly so.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)"At this time" is the OPERATIVE phrase, bro - Your idea of what's "likely" to change is simply an opinion. That being the case, you needn't keep repeating yourself..You have a firm grasp on the present, what you seem to lack is an understanding of the possible.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)and with this SCOTUS, it's quite probable that this will remain as it is.
tritsofme
(17,322 posts)you dont like? Sure!
I guess its also possible that Congress passes a bill mandating pigs have wings.
Both seem rather unlikely.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)Try again.
tritsofme
(17,322 posts)whathehell
(28,968 posts)Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding about the limits on the 1st Amendment
The Founders knew nothing about modern technology, so things like the "regulation of cable TV" are matters of legal interpretation, e.g. " Is this covered by the 2nd Amendment, or is this an exception in a way similar to that Libel, Slander, and some other things.
.
.
tritsofme
(17,322 posts)not like prohibitions on libel or slander.
Again, there seems to be a lack of understanding about the limits on the 1st Amendment
lol, it seems quite the opposite. You seem to have a very wild imagination as to how narrow the First Amendment is.
whathehell
(28,968 posts)The ruling when Fox News was sued, was that Fox could not be held liable as it was "entertainment" as opposed to "news" The obvious argument to that, is a challenge to their right to the title "news", e.g. Fox News.
At best, it's False Advertising, which is legally actionable, and at worst, interference with
our democracy by way of deliberate misleading its citizens.
brooklynite
(93,847 posts)brooklynite
(93,847 posts)Perhaps they're not as up on the Constitution as you are?
whathehell
(28,968 posts)in answer to your first, um "question" about a definition of "news".
As to the FCC, and the legal establishment generally, it's hardly had time to digest and consider the deliberate election lies of Fox "News"
CrispyQ
(36,225 posts)???
Newsmax & OOAN are also allowed to call themselves news stations. ???
At the beginning of every show they should have to put up a spoken & written message stating that they knowingly lied about the facts & that the 2020 election wasn't stolen.
Justice matters.
(6,873 posts)whathehell
(28,968 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 1, 2023, 02:46 PM - Edit history (2)
is the sticking point.
Fox has been sued for lying more than once. The ruling?.. it's "ok" for Fox News to lie as Fox News is "entertainment"...The obvious argument is, if it's "entertainment", why is it allowed to bill itself as "News"?....This misleads the public, and amounts to False Advertising, something that IS actionable by law.
As was pointed out by MSNBC's David Jolly yesterday, if they choose to lie, they should call themselves " Fox Programming", or something, as it's not " news"
brooklynite
(93,847 posts)Otherwise that pesky First Amendment kicks in.
whathehell
(28,968 posts).
CrispyQ
(36,225 posts)whathehell
(28,968 posts)I'm sure it's a huge coincidence..
whathehell
(28,968 posts)Response to CrispyQ (Reply #3)
whathehell This message was self-deleted by its author.
bucolic_frolic
(42,663 posts)moonshinegnomie
(2,408 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)there is no license to operate on those venues, they're pay per view therefore, the govt. has no authority to censor, fine, etc.
Justice matters.
(6,873 posts)But... don't count on the "current" GQP house for that one.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)Prairie_Seagull
(3,229 posts)There sure as hell should be. If the congress is the only regulator then, what?
By the way if the reason why the FCC can regulate 'over the air' stations is that their signals penetrate the human body then the same rules should apply for satellite stations?
Admittedly I should look into this more.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)Yes, there is, it's called the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Elessar Zappa
(13,649 posts)Firestorm49
(4,002 posts)which required both views to be presented in media. This nurtured the beginning of FOX Entertainment. News? Debatable!
Truth in advertising in general as well as a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
( initiated in 1949] are badly needed, but in this era of moron leadership by the Republican Party, it simply wont happen, because what is right is wrong in their eyes. What ever happened to the Federal Communications Commission?
If nobody has the clout to reign in an out of control coup praising media network, then well just have to continue down this mess that were already in with no abatement.
themaguffin
(3,805 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)they operate on cable, of which the FCC has zero content authority.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)The FD was abolished well before the preponderance of the population consumed TV & radio by means other than terrestrial broadcasting.
Whether the FD would have been extended, were it still extant, is unknowable. But, it's not something we can say with certainty would not have occurred.
So, while your statement is inarguably true, the elimination of the doctrine obviate any poss8ble future outcomes of it.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)The FD is an FCC regulation for OTA broadcasting. OTA broadcasting is regulated because there are a limited number of frequency bands that can be used making it a limited public good which can be regulated by the federal government.
No such limitation exists with cable/satellite/internet so therefor there is no compelling public interest the government needs to protect through regulation. It's not that the FCC/Federal government has chosen not to regulate the content of these providers, it's because they can't.
Because the FCC has never had authority over these types of media and never will so long as there is a 1st amendment, we can be sure that the FD would have never applied to them had it not been eliminated.
ProfessorGAC
(64,413 posts)You obviously didn't read my post completely.
What we can't know is whether the authority would have expanded as the preponderance of consumption was non-OTA.
It is NOT impossible that Congress would have expanded the FCC's reach had the doctrine still been in place.
With the FD no longer existing there was little reason to legislatively expand their scope as there would be no obvious public interest served by doing so.
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)A congress that won't impose the FD on OTA, where they have clear constitutional authority to do so would not have expanded the FD to outlets for which they have no clear constitutional authority to regulate content.
And even if they wanted to, which they clearly do not; they can't, because as I pointed out earlier their authority to regulate comes from the physical limits of OTA bandwidth. Any content regulation of the internet or PPV cable and satellite would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Beachnutt
(7,189 posts)St Amant vs Thompson 1968
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/604/st-amant-v-thompson
Beachnutt
(7,189 posts)Response to Liberal In Red State (Original post)
Beachnutt This message was self-deleted by its author.
Middlevoter
(13 posts)I think every news outlet on the world has released incorrect info and outright lies. It's all about ratings. I can't think of a single one that has a perfect record.
Samrob
(4,298 posts)and pundits fined and/or imprisoned.
Right now, the FBI is the most worrisome entity to watch. It appears to me, from the comments at today's Garland testimony, the Trumpians are completely in control of events and are going to latch on to the China lab controversy to go after Fauci, Biden, and science in general. The main job of the House and Senate GOP is to divert attention away from everything Trump did or didn't do that was either criminal or anti-democracy or pro-Russia or insurrection related.
It's called, throwing shit against the wall. The MAGAs are so dead set against Biden and his support of Ukraine that we might get the Defense budget cuts the left has been longing for over decades. Understand this about Ukraine: Had Trump not been against Ukraine and pro Russia, most of the GQP would have been for helping Ukraine without bitching about it. The MAGAs hate to see Putin or Trump compared to Zelenskyy. It actually makes them sick but they won't tell you.
In the meantime, the GQP is trying to help Putin and Russia by making China the target for regime change. SMH
Initech
(99,912 posts)How??? How is that possible? All of these scumbags need to be locked up and their terrible policies need to be reversed now.
tritsofme
(17,322 posts)like.
You can encourage people to stop watching, discourage advertisers, etc.
But you cant use the government to shut them down
Zeitghost
(3,796 posts)These basic concepts used to be Liberal Politics 101.
brooklynite
(93,847 posts)The ONLY reason FCC can impose regulations on broadcasters is because its part of the lease agreement for Government-owned broadcast frequencies.
And it doesn't matter what anyone here THINKS should be possible. The FCC, The President, the Congress and the Courts don't agree.
MarineCombatEngineer
(12,092 posts)ripcord
(5,084 posts)The government controls broadcast frequencies for the public need, they can be used by the federal and state governments in times of emergency. Cable doesn't use the public air waves and was installed using private money by for profit companies so the FCC has no right to regulate their content.
bluestarone
(16,720 posts)What i would love to see is the TRAITORS that listened to Fox, and believed what these 4 or 5 fox idiots were saying, would subpoena EVERYONE of them at their trial. I see that as the ONLY thing that could be a possible? (not sure) That would make things pretty interesting though.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)Multiple times a day for the next 3 months or so. They shouldn't be allowed to sweep everything under the rug.