Serious question: why is RT, owned, operated and controlled by Russia, a foreign

[Atticus]

power that has just committed an act of war with their hacking of US concerns, public and private, still available to viewing audiences in the US?

Don't just scream "First Amendment" at me. Isn't what they have done/are doing at least as bad as screaming "FIRE"! in a crowded theater?

I'd like to see Ed Schultz drawing unemployment for a while.

[underthematrix]

1. Private industry. The larger question is why any American who has fine motor skills and

a brain is watching a KGB controlled TV show committed to overthrowing our govt which has been accomplished.

[Atticus]

3. You do realize that "fine motor skills and a brain" excludes the overwhelming

majority of Trump disciples, don't you?

[doc03]

4. I listen to Thom Hartmann on Serius Radio, I don't beleive I ever watched it on RT.

Do they run the same show on both? I never cared much for Ed Schultz anyway I always thought he just moved to
the left because he couldn't compete with the other right wingers.

[Fla Dem]

5. TH should remove himself from RT. But the $$ are probably too good. It's an hour long tv show.

[rickford66]

12. He's not paid by them. He pays to use the studio.

[whathehell]

11. Thom has his own show along with total editorial control

something he said MSNBC doesn't offer.

[Laurian]

2. I'd just like to see the Americans drawing pay from RT have a conscience

and leave with great fanfare citing Russian election interference revelations.

[onenote]

6. whenever someone says don't scream First Amendment, I scream First Amendment

It's that important.

Then again, maybe back during the Cold War you were in favor of banningthe Communist Party of America and its publications.

[roamer65]

7. I don't think our First Amendment extends a to foreign government-owned TV channel...

bent on sowing discord and disunity within the United States. The goal of the Russian government is the break up of the United States and RT is a vehicle for that goal.

[onenote]

8. You'd be wrong

The Supreme Court has held that audiences within the United States possess a First Amendment right to receive information from foreign speakers. In the era of global Internet communications, the idea of the US government deciding whether or not its citizens can access particular content source should be terrifying to anyone who values the First Amendment. There are countries that routinely block access to foreign originated content with which they disagree -- I wouldn't want to live in any of them.

To give you some idea of the dangers of the position you're advocating, consider that in 1983, the US government invoked the Foreign Agents Registration Act with respect to three movies being imported to the US by the Canadian Film Board. Two of the movies dealt with the effects of acid rain. One dealt with the effects of nuclear war. Under FARA, the films could be distributed, but had to be labelled and identified as "foreign political propaganda." While I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the label places no burden on protected expression because labelling the films as foreign political propaganda does not inhibit the American public's access to the films nor prohibit, edit, or restrain the distribution of materials to which the term "political propaganda" applies, I am heartened by the recognition that restrictions that did prohibit such materials would violate the First Amendment right of those American citizens who want access to these materials and those American citizens who want to disseminate them.

[KatyMan]

10. Great posts thank you onenote n/t

[Atticus]

13. So, where do YOU draw the line---or do you not draw one?

You phrase your argument well, but perhaps the issue is not "the idea of the US government deciding whether or not its citizens can access particular content source" but, rather, whether or not the US government should prevent nations known to wish our downfall to employ our airwaves and bandwidth to further their anti-American objectives.

Is prohibiting the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" a protection of innocent movie fans or an infringement of their right to hear what some sociopath wishes them to hear?

I don't believe it is nearly as clear cut as you have portrayed it and I believe your "learned analysis", while interesting, largely rests on the conflation of, at least, apples and oranges, if not apples and pomegranates.

[onenote]

14. the issue, always, with the first amendment, is a slippery slope

What a particular administration considers to be an "anti-American" objective is gong to vary. The attempts to silence the communists in the 50s is as clear proof of that as you can ask for. I have no doubt that Richard Nixon thought the things I was reading and writing and saying during the Vietnam War were "anti-American."

So the answer is that you draw the line other than at the point of banning speech that we don't agree with. We counter it with more speech.
Finally, let me note that the concept of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is one of the most abused and misunderstood concepts in first amendment jurisprudence. It was used in the context of a decision that upheld a conviction of someone for distributing flyers opposing the draft during WWI. I seriously doubt you think that the First Amendment shouldn't protect such activity. What people forget is that Justice Holmes was using the example of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater in order to illustrate what he believed at the time was speech that created a "clear and present danger" to society. Holmes himself backed away from the idea that handing out flyers would create such a clear and present danger and later decisions of the SCOTUS, most notably the Brandenburg v. Ohio decision further narrowed it to apply only where the speech that incites imminent lawless action such as a riot.

[roamer65]

15. I draw the line at a TV channel that is controlled by a foreign government...

that is openly hostile to the United States. It should have been blocked years ago under sanctions.

[Igel]

9. On paper RT is independent.

It's not a "foreign person" or whatever the term is because it's not formally controlled by the government. It was launched that way, but it reorganized a few years ago to prevent others lodging your claim.

Those who rely on technicalities and on paper are easily persuaded that there is no collusion or control, and typically they rely on the technicalities because they don't want to believe that there's collusion or control. When RT was accepted by some DUers--and much more than just the Ukr/Crimea mess had links to RT--those DUers accepted the paper-based fiction.

[FarCenter]

16. We should take our cue from China, which had barred the New York Times

Apple pulls New York Times apps in China after government request

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-new-york-times-china-idUSKBN14O29L?il=0