If the UK can do it....why the hell can't we?

[634-5789]

[marie999]

1. Fortunately, or unfortunately, however you see it, we have the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

[RKP5637]

6. That needs to be adjusted to responsible free speech when broadcasting across the nation IMO. n/t

[Dial H For Hero]

10. You want to modify or repeal the 1A? Hard pass.

[RKP5637]

12. Ha, never will happen. Joseph Goebbels would have loved it! n/t

[SCantiGOP]

24. I'll join you in the hard pass

Great liberal judge William O Douglass: “Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.”
He also said, in a case involving the KKK, that how we tolerate the most abhorrent speech is the indicator of how dedicated we are to free speech.

Final quote, Thomas Jefferson said that given a choice between a government without freedom of the press, and no government but freedom of the press for the society, he would choose the latter.

[H2O Man]

64. +3

"You say you'll change the Constitution,
well, you know
we'd all love to change your head."
-- John Lennon; Revolution; 1968.

[Orrex]

141. No need to modify or repeal it

No amendment is an absolute guarantee of rights, and the 1st is already subject to all kinds of limitations--as are all the other amendments.

A developed nation should be able to find a way to limit corporate speech by, for instance, abandoning the bullshit notion that corporations are people or are entitled to the same rights as people. One could thereafter require, for instance, that corporate speech is protected only to the extent that it can be proven true. A corporation cannot have opinions, nor should corporate falsehoods be protected. And matters of "good faith" falsehood should, once the falsehood is demonstrated, be subject to restriction.

Many restrictions along these lines already exist. A mutual fund cannot publish a prospectus full of falsehoods, nor can a food manufacturer lie about the contents of its product. I see no reason why similar strictures can't be applied to corporate speech in general.

Agents speaking on behalf of corporations, whether they be posing as journalists or serving as attorneys, should be held to the same standard.

Before someone howls "wHaT aBoUt SoCiAl MeDiA?" I assert that such open platforms are fundamentally distinct from media outlets in which seven-figure employees broadcast from scripts provided by the corporation that employs them.

And before someone else howls "WhAt AbOuT fIcTiOnAl Tv ShOwS oR mOvIeS?" I further assert that these are self-evidently fictional and do not try to pass themselves off as fact.


The only real obstacle here is, again, the bullshit fantasy that corporations are people. Although I don't pretend that it would be simple to get rid of that nonsense, the rest would be pretty simple after that, and doing so wouldn't curtail the 1st Amendment in any way.

[ForgedCrank]

150. And how would

your position change if, God forbid, the former ass is re-elected and starts deciding who gets to speak their mind and who doesn't?
This is a dreadfully bad concept. And no, I don't even like social media platforms doing it.
No way.

[Orrex]

155. No doubt you campaign tirelessly against all restrictions upon the first amendment.

So when someone shouts "fire!" in a theater, I expect that you'll be first to leap to their defense. And when you lose your life savings because the fund's prospectus lied to you? I'm confident that you'll say "oh well, at least the first amendment hasn't been restricted."

No? Then how can you possibly explain how some restrictions are acceptable but others are not?

If the The Fuckhead Guy slimes his way back into office, do you honestly think that he'll be constrained by law? Gun zealots are fond of chanting that laws don't stop criminals, so TFG doesn't give a shit about anything as petty or fleeting as laws or the constitution. Therefore it is pointless to use TFG to justify objection to any law; he'll act however the fuck he wants to act regardless.

And, anyway, your objection doesn't touch my demand that corporations lose their "personhood" designation. Nor did I say anything about granting the president the summary authority to restrict people's speech. You are objecting to a point that I didn't make, nor have you demonstrated that it would necessarily follow from what I propose.

[ForgedCrank]

158. I consider that

a silly argument.
"Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" puts people in physical danger and is illegal.
In addition, calls for violent actions can also be illegal. There are laws already covering these things.
Your argument regarding corporations (one I happen to agree with) is altogether separate from 1st Amendment protections and can be handled without nullifying free speech for citizens.

[Orrex]

197. Then I don't understand what you're complaining about

Nowhere have I asserted that citizens' right of free speech should be restricted beyond considerations of safety or damaging falsehood.

The entirety of my argument follows from my objection to corporations being considered people. Corporate speech should be more tightly restricted than the speech of actual people, so I see no reason why a proudly, demonstrably dishonest propaganda outlet like Fux Noise shouldn't be reined in.

[ForgedCrank]

201. Well, you

just said it yourself: "damaging falsehood".
Thats a step too far and is the core of my argument. We have civil recourse for such things that may damage another person in an other than physical manner. If you don't consider state controlled speech a very dangerous idea, especially regarding the press, then there's not much left for us to talk about really. I insist that it is a very bad idea that undermines our entire system of freedoms, no matter how stupid Fox news is.

[Orrex]

262. You have several times misrepresented my position

I have done with this bullshit.

[ForgedCrank]

265. Ok. Works for me

[Maraya1969]

175. Then bring back the fairness doctrine. If that is the right name. Where a news organization must

not only states the other side of the story they dedicate the same amount of times to it.

Other than that we could organize a boycott of their products advertisers.

[Sgent]

178. SCOTUS

only allowed that as it applied to broadcast stations that used public airways, and you get 9-0 for those like Fox News which don't.

[onenote]

285. The fairness doctrine did not require "equal time" to "the other side" of the story.

Last edited Tue Apr 5, 2022, 01:03 AM - Edit history (1)

It is a common misperception, but all the fairness doctrine required was that broadcast stations devote some time to the coverage of controversial issues of public importance and to air contrasting views on the subject. But it didn't require that the amount of time devoted to one side or another be the same.

Another misperception about the fairness doctrine: that it would be a magic bullet. It was repealed in 1987. It didn't stop Richard Nixon from being elected in 1964 and reelected in 1968. It didn't stop Ronald Reagan from being elected in 1980 and reelected in 1984. It didn't stop the repubs from capturing the Senate in 1980.

I've practiced communications law for over four decades and from my experience, the fairness doctrine was largely a non-factor. Complaints, when filed, rarely resulted in any meaningful action against the station.

[betsuni]

293. Thank you.

[Mariana]

31. Who gets to decide what is "responsible free speech"?

It won't be you.

[elleng]

42. Zacly.

Impossible.

[Meadowoak]

87. How about equal time for an opposing view point, like it used to be?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

88. It was never that way with cable, satellite or internet,

the FCC is forbidden by law to regulate content or otherwise on those venues, a license is not even required to operate on those venues, which are privately owned.

[Meadowoak]

89. We don't even have it for broadcast TV, anymore.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

91. The FD is an outdated law, there are so many

other ways to get information today that the FD is useless and no one in Congress is even suggesting it and it would be tossed as unconstitutional by just about any court in the land, especially SCOTUS, if it ever made it that far.

[reACTIONary]

126. +100 nt

[reACTIONary]

123. +100 nt

[onenote]

288. The fairness doctrine never required "equal time" for an opposing view point.

See post #285.

[Bettie]

122. Start simple

if it is a news show, it needs to actually be true.

If it is an opinion show, there must be a banner (or regular announcement if radio) that it is opinion.

[Mariana]

131. That is ridiculously easy to get around.

"Fox News Channel has received a report that XYZ happened," but XYZ didn't happen. Can you prove that they didn't receive a report that XYZ happened? If they did receive a report from any source, then they spoke the truth.

[Bettie]

152. So, no point in even trying

just let them spew whatever they want to...noted.

[tritsofme]

154. That's exactly right. There is no point in trying to use government power to suppress speech

you don’t like. Not only is there no point, doing so is authoritarian and illegal.

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote,

"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."

[Mariana]

159. We can stop giving them money.

Everyone who subscribes to a TV service that carries Fox News Channel directly supports them. Every time a subscriber pays the bill, Fox News Channel gets a piece of it.

[Tumbulu]

167. That's a good start- let's keep coming up with solutions

and ignore these sorry people who have such limited ideas.

[Amishman]

48. and who gets to define 'responsible free speech'? Sorry, I'd rather have freedom than that risk

Once you start putting restrictions on freedom, it is easier and easier for a malicious entity to misuse that power to further their own ends.

I'd rather have unrestricted flow of ideas and information, even if it leads to this type of bullshit.

That being said, I also think it is more productive to look a little deeper.

I still think most of our troubles can be traced back to economic roots.

Why?

The slow transfer of wealth to the elites and the slow decay of working and middle class quality of life has added a ton of stress and pressure to our daily existence. This leads people to want to lash out, and makes the job of spinsters like Fox 100x easier as their audience is already looking for someone to blame for their struggles and call their enemy - all Fox has to do is misdirect that angst.

[Tumbulu]

56. On DU there are all these clueless people who go on and on

about free speech somehow entitling the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Murdock to trash the collective imagination and sour all social discourse.

So, I think that it is useless engaging with them at all.

They seem to have no understanding of the enormity of the damage caused while having some sort of limited knowledge about the first amendment. Enough for them to waste all of our time on DU with negative comments.

I have decided to ignore them all as it is just pathetic.

There is a profound difference between the right to say what you want without arrest and the right the right to use public airwaves to disseminate hate speech and incite violence. The first amendment absolutely does not create a mechanism of taxpayer funded dissemination of hate speech. Or any speech. The choice in what to broadcast is up to the public through the political process.

We need to exercise the power that we do have. And fast.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. Well, considering that the likes of Faux, Newsmax, etc.

are on privately owned cable, satellite, internet stations, no public airways are being used, so therefore, by law, the FCC has zero authority over them, content or otherwise, there is also no license to operate on any of these venues.

If the Govt attempted to shut down RW venues, it would be thrown out by the first court to hear the case, which would be within hours.

[oldsoftie]

71. Now you stop making sense and all that!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

73. Sowwy.

[rainy]

95. Why is what Fox News does any different

than brainwashing? Lying and presenting FALSE narratives that cause hate, violence, and violent overthrowing of government, is not free speech. It is not a right to use hate speech for violent manipulations. Some “speech” is deadly and is not free to make.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

101. Well, considering the courts disagree with you,

I'll go with the courts.

Like it or not, it is protected speech.

[rainy]

107. The court agrees with me. In a supreme

court ruling, the first amendment does not allow one to yell fire in a crowded theatre. It could cause a stampede and death. Some speech does have legal consequences!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

109. No, that's not true,

it is legal to shout fire in a theater if one reasonably believes there is a fire.
Try again.

[rainy]

117. Of course if you actually believe it duh!!!!

You can’t yell it for no reason. It’s actually in the ruling brief by the Supreme court.

[stopdiggin]

157. it's a stupid line, from an (exceedingly) stupid ruling

the fact that you keep advancing it ...

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine).

Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as the final word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."

[mahatmakanejeeves]

181. Thank you.

You've made Popehat smile.

[Jedi Guy]

120. The Supreme Court does not agree with you.

The "fire in a crowded theater" thing came from a 1919 SCOTUS case, Schenk v. United States. The phrase itself is a paraphrase of the opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It was, in itself, never a legal ruling and never had any legal weight.

In any case, it no longer matters because it was supplanted by the so-called Brandenburg Test, which emerged from a 1969 SCOTUS case, Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg Test established very narrow criteria to define speech which is not protected by the First Amendment, as follows, emphasis mine:

The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

In short, you are incorrect.

[stopdiggin]

156. No. It. Doesn't.

Even the 'fire in a crowded theater' trope is widely misunderstood and misconstrued. (You DO understand that the quote comes from an absolutely indefensible bad case law, that has been roundly rebuked and overturned?) But, more importantly - the only place where the court has curtailed free speech - is when a (rather direct) line to actual violence can be drawn. And thus - no, does not agree with you.

U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."

"the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

[rainy]

90. Thank you, well said!!!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

92. No, it wasn't.

Why people want to screw with the 1A, especially Dems, is beyond me.

[Dr. Strange]

100. Because...

Why people want to screw with the 1A, especially Dems

they think that the only speech that will get censored is the speech they disagree with. They honestly don't think their own speech could end up being targeted.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

102. Yep, they don't consider how this will their right to free speech.

[Dr. Strange]

108. Ironically Junker recognized the problem when Trump was in office.

Link to tweet

Oh how the turntables...

[Jedi Guy]

116. "Why people want to screw with the 1A, especially Dems, is beyond me."

Because as vehemently as people will deny it, there are authoritarians on the left. It is by no means a strictly right-wing phenomenon. That said, the right-wing authoritarianism that we've seen in the last several years is far more dangerous and deadly to the Republic, but that does not excuse or justify anyone on the left who engages in it.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

119. +100.

[stopdiggin]

160. +1 Oh .. YES!

For the left to go all 'squishy' on free speech - is a huge, huge, HUGE mistake.

And 3, 2, 1 -- now someone will trot out the old "Popper's Paradox of Tolerance" cartoon ..

[kcr]

153. I would rec this if I could

Agree with all of it. But I won't defend it to death.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

182. I am one of those clueless people who go on and on.

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2022, 08:09 AM - Edit history (2)

Sorry, but I was watching "Monk" last night and I missed most of the fireworks.

So, belatedly, Constitution, Newseum, 1A, all that unimportant stuff. "Negative comments," as you call them.

I hope my offering is sufficient to trash your collective imagination.

And, just to toss more gasoline on the fire, "Monk" comes in on a subchannel of my local Fox Broadcasting (over-the-air) TV station. That is my most-watched TV station.

[RKP5637]

246. Often on DU it's a waste of time to try to have meaningful discussions. So, I present

a question and then the fireworks begin. I don't even bother to respond for the most part, it's just not worth it.

[paleotn]

59. I hear you, but no.

Responsible, unfortunately, is in the eye of the beholder. I can imagine what Trump and his minions would consider "irresponsible speech".

[MichMan]

77. This forum for one...

[Angleae]

70. Keep in mind what "responsible free speech" is to republicans.

When they get back in power to shut down all left-wing stations/sites (including this one)

[LiberatedUSA]

98. Who decides what is responsible?

Is it an open definition of “we know it when we know it”? Are you worried that those with different views and goals than yours would, once in power, change the definition of what is responsible vs irresponsible free speech in ways you won’t much like?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

136. To what purpose? nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

203. You are aware that the FD never applied to cable, satellite or the internet aren't you?

The FCC is expressly prohibited by law to regulate those venues in any way, shape or form.
As they are not using any public airways, there isn't even a license to operate on those venues.

The FD is an outdated law that is no longer needed, there are plenty of other forms of info to be had these days and it wouldn't survive a court challenge anyway.

Think about what you're asking for, it could also apply to places like DU, would you want to have RWer's on DU as part of equal time?

[onenote]

289. The fairness doctrine never required "equal time" for opposing viewpoints.

See post #285.

[SergeStorms]

21. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

Murdoch could still spread his lies and ultra-right-wing propaganda, but he'd at least have to give equal time for the purveyors of truth.

[Grasswire2]

37. YES nt

[Dial H For Hero]

38. The FD doesn't apply to cable.

[Tumbulu]

57. So what? At least bring it back for what it does cover

It is a first step.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

81. Cable took over

When we lost free tv.

Promised tv without ads too because you were paying for it.

And the govt. Paid for the cable infrastructure.

I think the fairness doctrine must be applied to cable.

[murielm99]

63. Exactly.

[moose65]

67. No he wouldn't

The Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcasts over the public airwaves. It did not apply to cable.

However, it DID apply to AM radio, so it might be useful against right-wing talk radio.

[melm00se]

121. That would be no for many reasons...

The days of the Fairness Doctrine are long gone and any attempt to reinstate it will not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

Way back when the Fairness Doctrine existed, the media landscape was so very different. With the exception of major markets, there were really only 3 TV networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), radio was limited to AM only which meant maybe a dozen or so stations and that...was...it.

It was this environment (the "scarcity of...frequencies" ) that allowed the Fairness Doctrine to pass Constitutional muster.

Now, let's fast forward to today:

The average American consumer has access to not only ABC, NBC and CBS (as well as local Fox affiliates) but also to a myriad of other news outlets from cable/satellite TV. On top of that, there are countless podcasts, blogs, streaming only services plus even more newspapers and magazines from around the globe with just as many differing points of view. Because of this, the "scarcity of...frequencies" justification no longer exists.

Furthermore, the FCC has zero licensure power over non-over-the-air outlets (which includes Fox News) so what is the FCC going to do? Say "Stop...or I shall say "Stop" again"?

Now, of course there could be an attempt to expand the FCC's scope but that could very easily blow up in supporters' faces. Take DU as an example. DU could be categorized as a news outlet which would mean that this new "Fairness Doctrine" would be applied. Do you really want to see Freepers having a legal right to be able to post here?

I have thought quite a bit on this topic and come to the conclusion that the only real solution would be to rollback the media ownership rules back to the days of 7-7-7 ownership rules but that would have some serious hurdles.

[SergeStorms]

138. Yes, those were the limitations.....

of the former Fairness Doctrine, but why couldn't a new doctrine be written to cover cable, the internet and all forms of media available today?

Yes, there are many hurdles in the way, and it's very possible it couldn't be done, but to not try is to cede our media to the liars, propagandists, and Murdochs of the world to bend public opinion to suit their nefarious agendas.

It's worth a try.

[melm00se]

196. Because of that pesky 1st amendment

The reason for the Red Lion decision's applicability was scarcity of broadcast spectrum. I can see no way that could or would apply in today's massive information age.

Furthermore I cannot come up with any sort of justification for any governmental body to reach in and regulate what could arguably be political speech.

But, by all means, reach out to your representatives and demand they take action and then be prepared for that doctrine to almost immediately have a lawsuit brought and carry with it amicus briefs from just about every media outlet (cable, OTA, internet, podcast, electronic print and physical print) in the USA and have it get blown out of the water and all the finite resources that were burned up to drive this thru to policy.

Finally, and I say this to everyone who bangs this drum, this is a "be careful what you wish for" situation. If this doctrine were to pass, it could very well come back and bite you on the ass. The limitations that you propose could quite easily be used to silence YOU and your message and you will look back and rue the day that you supported the return of this anti-free speech regulation.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

204. +100.

[stopdiggin]

269. thank you. this is a Pandora's box

and thinking citizens should run in the opposite direction ..

[onenote]

290. Posters keep saying that the Fairness Doctrine required equal time. It didn't.

See post #285.

[Dorian Gray]

183. The whole premise of the OP

is Incorrect.

The UK did not ban fox news.

And Jacinda ARdern never said any such thing. (The tweeter even managed to misspell her name.)


This is a completely untrue series of tweets that people here are taking at face value AND arguing about how we need to be like them and restrict speech.


While I agree 100% about the toxicity of Fox News, I am REALLY kind of upset that so many here are willing to take quotes at face value. Confirmation Bias is real, and it's a problem.

[CrispyQ]

266. So we can't have standards or metrics as to what is allowed to be called "news?"

The Covid/vaccine lies were particularly deplorable & harmful.

[Mariana]

280. Sure, just repeal the First Amendment.

Most of the lies are spread during the editorial/opinion/commentary shows anyway, so it would make very little difference in the end.

[FakeNoose]

2. Hey Ho, President Joe - Rupert Murduch has to go!

Faux Noise is evil and it shouldn't be allowed in democratic society.

[mcar]

29. What legal options do you suggest?

[FakeNoose]

32. "Propaganda for right-wing extremism" works for me

[mcar]

49. Can you link to that law?

[sir pball]

55. That's protected under the First Amendment

It's a pretty absolute law. If you'd like to weaken or repeal it you're welcome to voice that opinion, but you'll be in a very small minority.

[Tumbulu]

60. No - the use of public airwaves is separate from the first amendment

right to free speech.

You can say what you want, but are not entitled to the use of public airwaves for all and every kind of speech.

For goodness sake this discouraging of action by all of us regarding the use of public airwaves to disseminate hateful propaganda needs to stop.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

61. What public airwaves are Fox News using?

[rainy]

112. They are on cable but they also have a public

channel too and there lies the problem!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

115. Their public channels are far different than their cable station,

Last edited Sun Apr 3, 2022, 11:34 PM - Edit history (1)

I watch Fox TV all the time for shows like Family Guy, baseball games, etc, they're nothing like Faux Snooze on cable, so there is no problem.

Admit it, you want to ban speech you don't like, but want to keep the speech you do like.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

129. Fox News and Fox network are not the same thing nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

66. Just what, pray tell, public airways is Faux using? nt

[Tumbulu]

78. Instead of arguing with me, why don't you come up with creative ways

to deal with the damage this propaganda wreaks upon us all?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

83. Sorry, but I'm fine with the 1st Amendment just the way it is,

and I'm not going to argue the point with you about shutting down speech we don't like.

Be careful what you wish for, it can be turned on us also, and DU could be shut down under the same circumstances you are advocating for by a repuke admin..

[sir pball]

85. You want "creative ways" around the concrete protection of free speech per the 1A?

Friend - you need to accept you're an authoritarian. You want speech you disagree with to be legislated out of existence.

If you'll admit you're opposed to truly free speech, I'll debate you. The lack of truly free speech hasn't been a problem for Europe so far so I can at least countenance it - but be honest. You are anti-First Amendment.

[oldsoftie]

114. He's not arguing, he's merely stating the truth.

There are a lot of facts that we don't like. Doesn't make them any less facts. Except here sometimes you'll get a hide for posting a fact thats not popular.

[sir pball]

94. Oh no, public airwaves are off limits!

Tucker - cable
Alex Jones - internet
Joe Rogan - internet

The "public airwave" thing is so old it's collecting Social Security.

[rainy]

103. Hate speech that causes violence

is the same as shouting fire in a crowded theatre. I can’t incite an attach on another person by lying about them. Saying some things does have legal limits even if you don’t want to believe it!

[sir pball]

105. You clearly aren't familiar with the Brandenburg test.

The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

I hate Fox, but nothing they do rises to that level.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

106. You left this part out,

imminent violence, and it is legal to shout fire in a theater if one reasonably believes there is a fire.

[rainy]

127. The point duh is that you can't say it if it's not

true and would cause death and destruction. Fox lies cause hate, threats, death and destruction!!!! I can’t threaten the life of someone publicly and incite others to hate them and want to harm them too. That is not free speech! And is not recognized as free speech by the courts. Look at what is happening with Alex Jones for his hateful speech, lies, about Sand Hook. He is being sued for his LIES, and will probably lose.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

130. You probably need to read post 120.

He's being sued civilly, not criminally, and by a private person, not the govt.

No court in the land will agree with you legally per the BoR.

[Tumbulu]

170. These silly responses citing 1st Ammendment

are so off base.

They presume that the only tool that we have is the government going after Fox News,etc.

But there are so many other ways to stop the propaganda.

We could sue these broadcasters civilly for slander.

We could pressure advertisers to stop supporting their shows.

What we need to do is come up with a plan.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

192. You calling our responses to the 1A silly is telling me all I need to know about you. nt

[stopdiggin]

270. "We could sue these broadcasters civilly for slander."

We could? Slandering whom? The country? The public at large? Have you checked to see what the definition of slander ...

I think the 'silly response' thing is kind of blowing back on you a little bit here.

[Tumbulu]

279. Here is an idea- instead of being negative

share some constructive ideas.

And no need to marginalize me or my sentiments of feeling attacked for 35 years by the hateful rhetoric of the far right.

[stopdiggin]

284. my 'constuctive' idea is ..

we NOT get on board with any of the soft brained, "we should modify and water down the First Amendment" dreck. Full stop.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

287. +100.

[Tumbulu]

291. That is not a constructive idea at all

I have a short time left on this planet, and I want to use whatever time it ends up creating a better world.

So come on- lend a hand here. I want something creative.

Can you propose something to do about the problem?

[stopdiggin]

292. I do not have any desire to curb speech

in any sort of legal format. Period. (excepting the very narrow range of what is already recognized as 'dangerous' speech) That does not preclude you (or I, or anyone else) from making the strongest of objections and opposition to any kind of speech we wish to combat. And that would include counter-speech, demonstration, petition, boycott, shaming and shunning - and any other methods available to me - as a private citizen. But I am NOT interested in employing the power of the government, or law - to impose constraints on ideas or speech that I oppose. That's the line.

So go ahead and organize, and network, and educate, and rally and oppose (at the top of your lungs) - but keep Uncle Sam out of it. I think Fox is every bit as ugly as everybody else on this page. But I don't think we should be employing the law to muzzle or shut them down.

[Tumbulu]

294. I am asking for all non governmental action ideas

As we have plenty of other tools- you described many of them.

That is exactly what I am asking. Which do you think could be done?

My oldest big plan, back in the first days of Limbaugh was to recruit an army of callers to get past the producers and when it was their turn to speak they would turn the fax machine function on to make that awful sound.

That idea never got any traction.

Still searching for a plan that could derail the agenda of the hate propaganda.

[Polybius]

151. We would get demolished in elections if we tried to ban them

But we won't try, because we're smart.

[RKP5637]

3. Excellent thing to do!!! Murdoch has single handily brought the US down!!! n/t

[Dial H For Hero]

4. First Amendment.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

5. Because the UK didn't do it

And we have free speech and free press here.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/england-banned-fox-news/

[mwooldri]

20. Exactly.

"Fixed News" stopped airing in the UK because no one was watching it. UK has BBC vs Sky for "cable news" and ITV does a decent news programme or two on its channels.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Uh I'd say the existence of any British colony qua colony is due to the rage of older white men.

[BlackSkimmer]

9. Ha! You make an excellent point.

As a dual British/US citizen though, I’m still a fan of the Brits.

[WarGamer]

8. Maybe cuz... laws?

[Initech]

11. Tucker Carlson is openly and freely aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States.

Why can't we throw his sorry ass in prison for that?

[RKP5637]

15. Certainly a fair question IMO. Recently I was on some major station, maybe a Fox affiliate and

they were going on about how Biden started the Ukraine war together with Russia. I shut if off immediately, what BS. .... but someone out there is listening to this crap believing it as the gospel truth. Rupert Murdoch has fucked over the US, but he's tolerated. FFS, if Hitler wanted a platform, Fox News would gladly give it to him.

[keithbvadu2]

18. from image dump - Tucker

[Dial H For Hero]

19. Russia is not an enemy of the United States as defined by law.

[Evolve Dammit]

22. wait a few weeks

[Mariana]

35. Even then, the USSC has ruled

that "aid and comfort to the enemy" means material aid and comfort. Cheerleading for the enemy doesn't count as treason. Free speech is a thing in the US, even in wartime.

[Evolve Dammit]

39. Would the Orange One removing classified docs to MagatLago and then say, giving that info away

(or selling it), would that be treason?

[Evolve Dammit]

40. And why else would he take it? Memorabilia?? He doesn't lift a finger if he can't make $$.

[Mariana]

41. It might be espionage.

For a treason charge, there has to be a declared enemy. Russia isn't.

[Evolve Dammit]

50. I think you're right. Does the U.S. have any "formal enemies" currently? Official list?

It's the formality that matters. Libya, Cuba, Iraq, RNK, etc. Not sure of any current status, but then I doubt anyone else does either if you're not in the MIC.

[Mariana]

52. We aren't in a formal state of war with any country.

Therefore, we have no declared enemies at this time.

[Evolve Dammit]

58. Thanks. Interesting that Japan never entered into a peace agreement after WWII

with Russia, so they have an ongoing conflict regarding northern islands, each claiming ownership. Russia has broken off projects with Japan over recently imposed sanctions. ISS now appears to be over as well. The bridges are being burned so to speak.

[Mariana]

69. If the US and Russia should actually go to war

I predict that from that moment, Tucker Carlson et al. won't make a peep that could be construed as praising or supporting Russia. They'll probably continue to criticize President Biden and every other Democrat nonstop, but I don't think they'll be cheerleading for the enemy.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

13. Hey, it's another Twitter personality making up shit for retweets nt

[ymetca]

14. something something "Fairness Doctrine"

not being applicable to Cable TV, then, something something - yeah, sure rich people CAN buy up all the media in town, then something something - okay, large conglomerates can now pretend that something that looks like "news" is actually just "infotainment" or something something - hey look at that Oscars slap!

It all worked "great" until social media came along. Now it's ubiquitous kooks on every platform, and geesh, I'm probably one of them!

[Augiedog]

16. From Gods lips....

[keithbvadu2]

17. So that same 43% of republicans would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142128590

“Freedom of the press may be guaranteed in the Constitution. But a plurality of Republicans want to give President Trump the authority to close down certain news outlets, according to a new public opinion survey conducted by Ipsos and provided exclusively to The Daily Beast.”

So that same 43% of republicans would approve a democrat shutting down Fox news?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media?via=twitter_page

[Evolve Dammit]

23. Wondering what the regulatory/legal basis in UK led to it's vanquish? Anyone?

[Celerity]

74. it never happened, the OP is fake news

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/england-banned-fox-news/

[Evolve Dammit]

84. reading the link (thanks) there are significant regulations that Fox broke and were cited for. We

(U.S.) has none of that since Fairness Doctrine is gone and FCC seems to be non-regulatory? At least specific Fox shows in UK were called out for specific infractions and had to issue apologies/ retractions. Not happening here.

[Celerity]

93. The Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable, so Fox News would not come under its purview.

I have no effective legal/regulatory means, with which to stop Fox News, that are Constitutionally harmonious. We shall all just have to wait and see if 1st Amendment near-absolutism will be one of the stakes in the heart of the union.

[Evolve Dammit]

99. I appreciate your insight. Could you expand a bit on your last sentence?

[Celerity]

118. It seams self-evident. At some point certain parts of the Constitution may well prove

to be national suicide pacts.

Long-wave ticking time bombs:

The Electoral College allowing a clear minority to grasp the ultimate levers of power far too often

The rise of the 'imperial Presidency'

The very nature of the Senate (30% of the population will soon control 70% of the seats, and that 30% is far more rural, white, racist, older, less educated, more fundie xian than the 70% who will only have 30 seats.

The 2nd Amendment (as interpreted)

The 1st Amendment if taken as a near absolute license to foment rebellion, systemic hatred, and civil war.

There are more, but I am gong to stop there for now.

Our side, the Dems, insist on playing by the books (NOT saying that is inherently bad btw) whilst the Rethugs increasingly ignore the books. They game the system to block us, and IF need be, will simply break the rules to grab more and more power. In a game, if one team cheats at will, and the other never does, the cheater will likely eventually win. A noble loss, but a loss nonetheless.

[rainy]

133. I hear you!!!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

179. Thank you for saying what I was thinking but was having trouble finding

the right words to express.

[Evolve Dammit]

187. Excellent points. (sadly). We hold these truths to be self-evident.

[The King of Prussia]

125. None

Because it's not true.

[CaptainTruth]

25. No, the UK did not ban Fox News.

Snopes has the details:

Did ‘England Ban Fox News Because They Saw It as Propaganda’?
A widely shared tweet in April 2021 grossly misrepresented the controversial news network's history in the United Kingdom.

Rating: False

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/england-banned-fox-news/]

[txwhitedove]

26. I just sent an e-mail to MSNBC asking about access to live streaming:

"Help. Retired, cutting costs, and don't want or need big TV packages.  Can't find unlimited MSNBC News live streaming even for Amazon Firestick.  Can't you add it to Peacock?  My fellow Americans need easier access to truthful news like MSNBC instead of FOX which they still get free on air channels.  Please!??  PS even CNN has their own sign-up for about $3 a month."

[MerryBlooms]

111. I watch a lot of MSNBC on YouTube.

Do you know how to watch YouTube and search YouTube?

[txwhitedove]

128. Oh yes, YouTube is rerun old stuff. I want to live stream as it

happens. YouTube TV has it, used it, but switched to Sling for price. Now want to get rid of Sling.

[MerryBlooms]

148. No, not all old and reruns.

I get their current shows usually within a couple hours after I leave work. Also, you can go directly to the MSNBC site. I watch Ali Velshi most days that way. I love Ali Velshi. I would live to see him in a permanent prime time slot, but I've been saying that for years. 😕

[txwhitedove]

191. Wow, thanks. I'll try those links.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

216. Those are all illegal pirate sites

If you want to watch pay TV live, pay for it. Likewise if you want to read paywalled newspapers, pay for them. I’m no longer a journalist because people decided that they shouldn’t have to pay for Internet content and newspapers lost advertising, subscribers and eventually staff.

[Celerity]

217. I live in Sweden, it's not on telly here in any form

[AZSkiffyGeek]

218. I can't watch the BBC in America without paying

Your point?

[Celerity]

219. but you can, you just choose not to

[AZSkiffyGeek]

220. I can't LEGALLY watch them

Because I understand the law and believe things should be paid for. Mostly because I lost my job thanks to people on the internet didn’t value mine and my coworkers’ work enough to pay for it.

[Celerity]

223. there is no subscription service here that carries MSNBC, and the American

legal streamers that do carry it for you are not available here

such as

[AZSkiffyGeek]

229. That sucks

So that makes stealing okay?

[Celerity]

231. watching free streams is not illegal here, streaming them without consent is, & I do not stream

I am not 'stealing' under Swedish law

[AZSkiffyGeek]

232. Then why does those sites always get shut down, siezed by the FCC

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2022, 12:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Then end up moving to places like Russia?

ON EDIT:
I get that this is legally gray in other countries, but in America it is illegal, likely a violation of the DMCA, and your ISP's terms of service. I've pirated things in the past, before I knew better, and I've had my ISP block my service because of it.
Unfortunately, MSNBC requires users to have CableTV before they can access their live stream. That will likely change in the coming year, especially since CNN is moving to subscriber-based streaming, and MSNBC already has Peacock in place.

[Dr. Strange]

27. The UK has arrested people for posting rap lyrics.

Let's not look to them for guidance on freedom of speech.

[Jedi Guy]

252. Wait, what? Really? Can I get a link to that story if you have a moment, please? N/T

[Dr. Strange]

263. Chelsea Russell

Found guilty: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

Eventually overturned, after being under curfew for eight weeks: https://liverpoolecho.co.uk.trem.media/news/liverpool-news/teen-prosecuted-n-word-rap-15874476

The lawyer highlighted the absurdity of the original ruling by bringing up the fact that YouTube and other websites posted the same lyrics without facing consequences. So there was this situation where corporations quite literally had greater freedom of speech than citizens.

[Jedi Guy]

276. Wow. Just wow. That's beyond absurd and seems like something out of the Onion, honestly.

This line from her attorney really stuck out to me, though, because he's exactly right.

"It may well be understandable perhaps if we were in a totalitarian state, but we're not, we're in the UK."

And it's really depressing that people want to introduce that kind of nonsense here.

[mcar]

28. 1st Amendment

we have it, they don't

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Fox News is a symptom and not a cause.

[Tumbulu]

168. No, it normalized what Limbaugh

was spewing on the radio and expanded what had been cultivated for decades already.

These propagandists play a long game. Ignoring or minimizing its corrosive damage plays right into their hand.

[Borderer]

33. As others have said Faux is not banned in the UK

It simply shut down because its viewership was miniscule. As I recall it was just the US broadcast with little or no UK content, so even British wingnuts weren't that interested and presumably its viewership was skewed towards expat Americans. However, Satan's very own mouthpiece will very shortly be returning to UK "news" broadcasting when his talkTV channel launches later this month. It promises to include a more international mix of hateful propaganda, with shows from Sky News Australia and local UK content as well as the dregs of Fox News. We also have some entirely domestic garbage of the same sort - GB News (home of the Nigel Farage Show).

Both networks controversially granted licenses by the current Conservative government for reasons that need no explanation. In 2012 a Parliamentary Committee declared that Murdoch was not a "fit and proper person" to run News Corp., but obviously the Tories beg to differ.

[onenote]

34. In case anyone missed the earlier response: The UK did NOT ban Fox News

Notwithstanding the frequent repetition of that claim on DU.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-010263624425

[Celerity]

171. the 2nd quote is fake too

Daniel Dale
@ddale8
Reporter for CNN, fact-checking the president and others.

This is a fake quote with 32,000 retweets and counting; New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern (not Adern) never said it. “We have no recollection of the Prime Minister making this comment and cannot find any source for it,” Ardern spokesman Andrew Campbell tells CNN.

Link to tweet

[Dorian Gray]

186. It's upsetting how quickly

something like this is a) spread and b) accepted as unassailable truth.



The second tweet even spelled Ardern's name incorrectly, yet people jump on it, retweet it, share it, etc.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

194. ...

It's upsetting how quickly

something like this is a) spread and b) accepted as unassailable truth.

Especially here on DU, we're supposed to be smarter that this.
This fuckin place sometimes.

[Dorian Gray]

295. We are just human beings

like everyone else. Confirmation bias is real, and I would love to figure out how to teach people to think beyond it. But having said that, I definitely fall victim to it, as well.

I just think we all need to read more critically in general. Things, especially on twitter, are posted to drive engagement over truth.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

296. +100. nt

[Martin68]

36. Yup

[AZSkiffyGeek]

43. Wow 68 people support doing away with the first Amendment

And support these lies.

[Dial H For Hero]

46. Some here do have an authoritarian streak, I'm afraid.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

230. Don't say so though, that's rude

Posting disinformation is okay, but call it out? Nope, that's being rude.

[Earth-shine]

44. Country-wide universal healthcare?

[liberalla]

47. Thank you Jacinda! Straight to the point. I like her a lot.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

54. You support peddling lies and calling for the removal of the 1st Amendment?

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2022, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[muriel_volestrangler]

177. If we're talking about accuracy, she did not "peddle lies" or call for the removal of the 1st Am.

The OP had her answering a question about why New Zealand does not suffer from the rage of older white men. The alleged reply (which others here have said she never gave, anyway) was that "we've never allowed Rupert Murdoch to set up a media outlet here". That is not "peddling lies", and neither it is "calling for the removal of the 1st Amendment".

If you're going to accuse someone of "peddling lies", you ought to get your accusation right. For fuck's sake.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

214. The OP said The UK banned Fox News

They didn’t, that’s a lie. The OP then went on to say we should here, that’s violating the first Amendment. So If you agree with the OP and share their ideas you are peddling lies and don’t support the first Amendment- that’s pretty basic comprehension.

[muriel_volestrangler]

224. OK, so you're accusing a DUer, not Jacinda Ardern, of lying

Accusing a DUer of lying is, course, pretty low - all they did was believe a tweet. Banning Fox News would probably be a violation of the 1st Amendment - but the Fairness Doctrine survived for many years, and that means there is an interpretation in which that could be extended to cable TV, though I don't think it'd pass this Supreme Court (or many of the them).

So, for "basic comprehension":

You replied to a post about what had been attributed to Jacinda Ardern, the PM of New Zealand. That's not about the 1st Amendment.

If you want to be rude to fellow DUers, you can characterize them believing a tweet about the UK banning Fox News as "peddling lies". If you really want to. That's about manners. But you're wrong to attribute that to Jacinda Ardern, or, for that matter to the DUer who likes Ardern - they did not comment on the "1st Amendment" part of the OP at all, so they are not "peddling lies" in any form, however rude you want to be.

Maybe you need to take a breath, and step back before continuing in this thread? It seems to be causing you unnecessary grief.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

227. Have you read the rest of this thread?

EVERYTHING in that Tweet was incorrect. This has been pointed out numerous times in the thread. Including the false quote from Ardern, who they couldn't even be bothered to spell the name correctly.
Yet it's still here, still being recommended, and still having people accuse those who rightly point out that it is incorrect of being rude to the person who posted the lies, because that is what they are. And by sharing those lies, the OP isn't innocently retweeting something, they're spreading disinformation. And by refusing to take it down, they're wilfully spreading that disinformation.
So why are you attacking someone who has provided the truth and called out the falsehoods and not the person who is spreading LIES?

[muriel_volestrangler]

233. You haven't "provided the truth". You've got it very wrong.

You attacked a person just for saying they liked Ardern. You accused Ardern of "peddling lies" & "calling for the removal of the 1st Amendment". Neither was true. And then you accused DUers (both, it seems to me, the thread starter, and the person you replied to), of "peddling lies" too. So, yes, that's rude. And that's why I'm attacking you. You're rude to DUers, and you're getting things wrong, because your comprehension is bad, and yet you say that other DUers have problems with "basic comprehension".

[AZSkiffyGeek]

235. Attack the messenger, got it

It’s not the person who made up stuff, or the person who retweeted it. Or the person who posts it. Or the person who agrees with the lies. The person in the wrong is the one who corrects it. Gotta ignore the truth, wouldn’t want to be rude.
And I’m curious why you are more concerned with civility than truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

236. The point is, you attacked the wrong people

And you seem too stubborn to think about checking your posts. Which is quite ironic since you're being so self-righteous about "truth". You're not a "messenger". You're a rude critic with poor comprehension.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

237. Tweeter creates falsehood

Poster shares falsehood
Poster is corrected multiple times, including by me
Poster leaves post up
Commenters agree with post and propose ways to limit constitutional rights for people they don't agree with.
I call out the poster for spreading falsehoods, and the people agreeing with them for proposing something that goes against one of the cornerstones of American freedom.
I'm called rude and accused of attacking the wrong people by someone who otherwise wasn't involved in the conversation and apparently just showed up to accuse me of being uncivil.

[muriel_volestrangler]

239. In this sub-thread, you called out someone for liking Jacinda Ardern

when Ardern is a good, progressive politician; and you called out Ardern for "peddling lies" and wanting to violate the 1st Amendment - neither of which, even if she'd said what had been attributed to her, would have been correct. So your "summary" above is inaccurate. The problem is that you're unwilling to re-read your own posts and check them.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

240. ARdern is a fine progressive politician who never said anything attributed to her in the post

Yet you are willing to support those retweeting LIES because they're attributed to her?

Can I make up a quote from Joe Biden saying we should ban Fox news? Would that be okay with you because you like Joe Biden, even though it is a lie?

[muriel_volestrangler]

243. You attacked Ardern

In reply to "Thank you Jacinda! Straight to the point. I like her a lot.", you replied "You support her peddling lies and calling for the removal of the 1st Amendment?" Your attack on Ardern is about as bad as making up a quote for her. Possibly worse, because you're saying she's malicious.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

245. I was actually criticizing the tweeter who posted it, the DUer who shared it

And the commenter who agreed with it. How you missed that I'm not sure. But you really are stuck on me calling out lies because I "attacked Ardern"?
Civility is more important than accuracy. Got it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

259. You posted "you support her peddling lies...", to a post in which "she" was Ardern

so yes, you were attacking Ardern. You've now edited out the "her" in that post, but, since it's a reply to someone saying they like Ardern, your "you support peddling lies.." still refers to Ardern.

You could try being accurate. That would be good.

You could try being civil. That too would be good.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

261. Repeating a lie is still lying

You apparently don't think so. And you keep going after me, for calling out lies, rather than the poster who you are excusing for posting said lies.

[The King of Prussia]

86. Guess what?

That one is a lie too.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

228. Be careful, calling out lies is rude

We shouldn't do that apparently.

[ramblin_dave]

51. Fake - both the UK and the NZ claim

Neither is true.

[Celerity]

208. thank you

[ecstatic]

62. True, but here's the thing.

At 19 years old, I was what one might call a "blank slate" and I somehow ended up on the Fox News channel during bill oreilly's show. I automatically knew everything out of his mouth was bullshit, but I was lured into watching just because everything he said pissed me off. I even wrote a few comments to him that got aired.

Again, I was a blank slate. Had never even voted before. So why is it that grown, mature adults look at that BS and don't know right from wrong? They're already evil, plain and simple. A good person is not going to watch that BS and turn bad. It doesn't work that way.

[nycbos]

68. A little problem with the first amendment.

[JI7]

72. We had those types when before Fox News

[MerryBlooms]

124. We certainly did. We had pro Nazi rallies before

We were Forced into WWII. We turned away ships of Jews fleeing extermination, mostly due to horrible anti Jew propaganda. First Amendment has always been some of our best US trait, and certainly at times, our Worst. Nevertheless, we must protect that right with every fiber of our being, lest we turn into a propaganda state like Russia, N Korea, China, etc... No matter how much damage the other side can do, our goal is to counter with truth. Not to damage ourselves with zealous or righteous anger! Because, for sure, if you takes rights from your enemy, there will be a day, when your voice will also be silenced. Then, what good will have you served?

I am not understanding some of these anti 1st Amendment posts. I appreciate your voice pointing out history.

[Tumbulu]

172. Figuring out ways to stop propaganda is not

out of bounds. We can pressure advertisers, we can sue for slander in civil courts.

We can stop ignoring that 40 years of concerted propaganda has gotten us here and we can come up with our own long term strategy.

I believe that the frustration with the hateful rhetoric of this propaganda is well founded.

Let’s figure out ways that we can stop it. Law Enforcement/Government Regulation is not the only recourse.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

195. None of us ever said it was out of bounds,

what we are saying is that it's out of bounds for the Govt to restrict free speech except under very, very narrow circumstances, and that's the way it should be.

If you want to go after their advertisers or sue them civilly, have at it, that's the correct way to do it.

[Tumbulu]

278. I come to DU for news and sharing ideas

as we have a heck of a lot on our hands.

How about we all look to figure out what we can do, instead of citing what cannot be done?

I welcome creativity and am tired of the negativity I tend to associate with Republicans.

I sure don’t want to find it here.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

75. Well, as has been pointed out numerous times here,

1. The UK did not ban Faux, there was very little appetite for it in the UK.
2. In the US, we have this pesky little 1st Amendment that protects free speech, even speech we find abhorrent.
Oh, and the most important thing:
3. DON'T FUCK WITH THE 1st AMENDMENT, nothing good would come out of it.

[Tumbulu]

76. First, please ignore all the perennial "first amendment" commentators

who are so unimaginative.

There are so many ways that we could do something about these propaganda spewing radio and tv shows posing as news who are anything but.

What we need is creativity and organization.

We could have destroyed Limbaugh 30 years ago had we only focused on getting the college campuses that hosted his shows to stop providing free broadcasting. These same colleges got people to stop investing in South Africa to stop apartheid, but allowed Limbaugh 35 years of inciting violence against gay and lesbian people and turned “feminist” into a dirty word. Who transformed OB/GYN physicians into “abortion doctors” in the public discourse.

No, we need to focus on what we can do. Let these propaganda outlets fight like hell for any so called right; we need to put them on the defensive. As they have put us on the defensive for nearly 40 years.

We must absolutely use every approach we can think of to stop this propaganda. Let them go to course to plead for help. Make them do some work for once. They have all had it far too easy.

[MichMan]

80. I just change the station when I find something I don't care to hear

[stopdiggin]

161. and a little side dish of authoritarianism -(nt)-

[betsuni]

79. Not even the best magician can pull a rabbit out of a hat if there isn't already a rabbit in the hat

[The King of Prussia]

82. Unfortunately

"Andrea Junker" is lying. Fox took the decision not to broadcast here. We did ban RT, though.

[dawn5651]

97. daniel dale of cnn fact checked this and jacinda adearn did not

say this.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

104. Considering that your whole OP has turned out to be bullshit,

maybe you should think about doing the right thing and deleting this crap.

[Mariana]

164. It's pretty ironic, isn't it?

The OP wants to eliminate Fox News Channel because it spreads lies, so the OP spreads lies to gather support for the idea.

[Celerity]

174. +10000000000000000

[Hav]

176. Indeed, it's ironic

You have to wonder whether the OP also supports getting one's posting privileges revoked for spreading misinformation and lies.

[Celerity]

166. +10000000000000000

[Aussie105]

110. So . . . .the 1st amendment allows me to say . . .

anything I like, anything nice, anything nasty, without some sort of kickback?

The real world doesn't work like that.

Imagine I yelled 'FIRE!' in a crowded picture theatre.
Imagine I told someone in the street, someone bigger than me, his mother wears army boots and he is a real MotherF'Kr, etc?

First instance, I'd be arrested for being a public nuisance, or causing a riot, in the second I'd get my head kicked in.

The First doesn't work in the real world. Why should it work on the airwaves, in social media, anywhere in fact?

Gotta tune up that first amendment thing!

And the second.
And a few others.
No one said the Constitution is immutable.
(If you do, point me to where the Constitution says that.)

But until you do, people will die from 'friendly' fire, and dumb people will have their brains scrambled by evil wrongdoers like Murdoch and #45.

Ask yourself this - countries that don't have a Constitution, or have one without such a first and second amendment - are they better off, or worse off than the USA?

[Jedi Guy]

132. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 1A, given your examples.

For your first example, the "fire in a crowded theater thing" never had any legal weight whatsoever. None. Zip. Zilch. It was a paraphrase of an opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a 1919 SCOTUS case, and was later supplanted by the Brandenburg Test.

For your second example, the First Amendment prevents the state from punishing you for your speech except for very narrow carve-outs. It does not prevent societal consequences from piling on you, as numerous people who have had racist outbursts have discovered to their sorrow. That big fellow in the street is not the state, so if he punched you in the nose for your comment, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the First Amendment, and everything to do with committing assault and battery.

[Aussie105]

142. In case you missed my point . . .

Most civilized people have an inbuilt system of judging what effect their words have on other people, considering their own motivation for saying anything, and possible consequences that may come back at them.

You are fine with people who DON'T do that, like Tucker, people who hide behind the first amendment to say anything, for any reason?

There needs to be a mechanism for restraining such people. Common decency isn't enough.

[Jedi Guy]

147. You're arguing against the First Amendment whether you admit it or not.

You are fine with people who DON'T do that, like Tucker, people who hide behind the first amendment to say anything, for any reason?

Where did I say any such thing? I have no love for the filth Tucker Carlson spews from his blowhole, but I have even less love for the idea of the government punishing people for saying things it doesn't like.

There needs to be a mechanism for restraining such people. Common decency isn't enough.

There is. The answer to bad speech is not less speech, it is good speech. Counter Tucker's bullshit with facts and truth. Put pressure on companies that advertise during his show, or on Fox News in general, via boycotts. Those are examples of mechanisms for restraining Tucker Carlson and his fellow travelers.

What you're proposing is using the government as a muzzle against speech/people you don't like, and that notion runs squarely counter to the First Amendment.

[stopdiggin]

162. there is no impediment whatsoever to 'civilized' people

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2022, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

(as you would have it) refusing to watch Carlson - boycotting his sponsors - or petitioning his employers to get rid of him. What there IS an impediment (roadblock) to, in this country at least, is in all of us demanding that the government must remove him from the airwaves.

[Make7]

113. At what point is it appropriate to challenge their License?

With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/statuses/918112884630093825

Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/statuses/918267396493922304

[Kali]

258. he's quoting dump

and pointing out where limiting speech leads...to them doing it to us.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

271. Ahh, ok,

my bad.
I'll just delete my post.

[Blue Owl]

137. K&R x 1,000,000

Fuck Rupert Murdoch and his bag of shit

[MarineCombatEngineer]

139. Except the headline is bullshit.

[Hekate]

140. In response, same old tired arguments about the 1st Amendment having NO limitations/consequences

Those arguments are as spurious as the arguments trotted out for the 2nd Amendment.

This country was founded as a republic, a democracy, and all that good stuff. It was never perfect, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights never existed in a vacuum.

Yet here we are today, taken over by hostile absolutists.

[Aussie105]

143. Yet here we are,

confronted by people who think the 1st and 2nd amendments are harmful to the community.

At least, their current interpretation as they stand.

[Tumbulu]

165. Yes, pathetic and unimaginative

who offer no ideas.

It’s is decades overdue to do something about this.

[Jedi Guy]

254. Who here argued that the First Amendment has no limitations?

Kindly point out such posts, please. I ask because the posts defending the First Amendment, mine included, have been crystal clear on its limitations. That you don't like or agree with those limitations and wish to impose further limitations is not the same thing.

As a thought experiment, would you support the government arresting and imprisoning someone for uttering racial slurs, or intentionally deadnaming a trans person? If so, why?

[RANDYWILDMAN]

144. Money talks loudest in the US, sadly

seems sanity should be more important

[Dial H For Hero]

146. I suspect OP's such as this which call for the federal government to restrict speech are not

as common when Republicans are in charge. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[ForgedCrank]

149. As much as

I despise Fox news, I find this to be unacceptable.
The popular trend of banning people for saying stupid things is very dangerous, and I don't support it in any way. Someone else could be deciding what is considered stupid tomorrow.

[stopdiggin]

163. quite correct.

are so many of our fellows really looking for (or seemingly OK with) 'state approved' content?

Raises the hair on the back of my neck.

[Celerity]

169. Your second quote is fake too. This OP is an embarrassment. You should take it down.

Daniel Dale
@ddale8
Reporter for CNN, fact-checking the president and others.

This is a fake quote with 32,000 retweets and counting; New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern (not Adern) never said it. “We have no recollection of the Prime Minister making this comment and cannot find any source for it,” Ardern spokesman Andrew Campbell tells CNN.

Link to tweet

[muriel_volestrangler]

200. FWIW, a former head of policy & comms for the NZ Green Party said something similar

“A huge reason that our politics is not so extremely polarised and so far out there is because we no longer have Murdoch-owned press in New Zealand, and it’s never taken a foothold,” said David Cormack, the co-founder of a public relations firm and a former head of policy and communications for the left-leaning Green party.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/19/why-new-zealand-rejected-populist-ideas-other-nations-have-embraced

[MarineCombatEngineer]

205. But it wasn't the govt that banned them, as the OP suggests. nt

[Celerity]

207. that is not what the OP claims with the fake quote

Asked why New Zealand does not suffer from the rage of older white men like in other western Anglo countries, PM Jacinda Adern replied, "Because we've never allowed Rupert Murdoch to set up a media outlet here." The guy has wreaked havoc on civil society in US.

Besides not even spelling Jacinda Ardern's name correctly, the tweet is factually wrong:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News#New_Zealand

New Zealand

In New Zealand, FNC is broadcast on Channel 088 of pay satellite operator SKY Network Television's digital platform. It was formerly broadcast overnight on free-to-air UHF New Zealand TV channel Prime (owned by SKY); this was discontinued in January 2010, reportedly due to an expiring broadcasting license. Fox News' former parent company News Corporation had a stake in both SKY and Prime until 2014.

https://archive.ph/6Wj2





This OP is disinformation (both parts) and it is amazing how many here buy into still even after it has been debunked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

225. Jeez, we get misattributed quotes on DU every day

It's part of life on the internet. I'm amazed at how angry people are getting about this particular one.

[Celerity]

226. It is not misattributed, both parts of the OP are fake news lies

[AZSkiffyGeek]

238. Yeah, why shouldn't we strive to be accurate?

Oh, right, because it's rude to correct lies.

[muriel_volestrangler]

241. I strive to be accurate on DU

and when I see something wrong, I take extra case to be accurate myself as well. And I also take into account the purpose of the posts, and the posters' knowledge when they made it; that has a bearing on whether you throw around words like "lies".

[AZSkiffyGeek]

242. So saying the UK and New Zealand banned Fox News isn't a lie?

Inventing a quote from the PM of New Zealand is accurate?
You don't seem to have a problem with those, but you do with people calling them out?
Why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

244. People have pointed out they're incorrect; it can be done without venom

and without attacking others too.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

247. Civility is more important than truth, I get your point

You've made it very clear in your stalking me over this.

[muriel_volestrangler]

256. "Stalking"? For fuck's sake, I replied to you once, and then continued that exchange

and then you replied to me in this sub-thread. That does not, in any way, constitute me stalking you.

Get a fucking sense of proportion.

[BlackSkimmer]

249. OP should delete this.

He’s revealing much about his character in not doing so.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

250. Unfortunately we don't really have a clear-cut "this is bullshit" option for alerting... nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

257. There is, however, no malice in the OP

They posted a couple of tweets.

In the case of Fox News in the UK, it was subject to regulation, and at times the regulator forced it to broadcast corrections. The regulator also has the power to withdraw a licence to broadcast (which includes on cable and satellite; it has just done so for RT). It's incorrect to say it banned Fox News, but it's not something about "character" to have believed it. We can see many examples of information at this level of incorrectness being left up on DU, but without malice or ulterior motives, being left up on DU.

For Murdoch in New Zealand, Ardern did not say it. There was a somewhat similar quote from a former director of policy in the NZ Green Party; while Sky Australia is still available to NZ satellites; the Murdoch media has had a far smaller footprint there than in Australia, the UK or the USA. That this has had an effect on the comparative reasonableness of NZ politics is a valid hypothesis. Again, there's no malice in thinking that Ardern claimed it, or that Ardern would be right to say it.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

260. If there was no malice then it should be taken down

But it's still here 12 hours later, even though it was corrected within minutes of posting. And it's spawned a whole bunch of people saying, yeah, we need to limit Fox News' first amendment rights, citing false case law, and chiding those who respect truth and the law.
If you're so damn concerned about sharing something you found a random account post on Twitter, then do the diligence to find out that what you posted is blatantly false.

Everything in that post was false. Yet now the defense is "but they didn't mean to post lies, and they're kinda true anyhow."

Why is truthiness acceptable from our side? And why are those who rightfully called it out being maligned for being rude?

You know what I think is rude? Disseminating and defending bullshit on the Internet.

[stopdiggin]

272. there is a certain amount of malice (or at least ill will)

in leaving the post up. (after so many have pointed out how completely erroneous and fraudulent it is) If it had been taken down or corrected I'd be more inclined towards understanding and empathy. But it wasn't. As it is - it stands out as (thoroughly exposed) bald faced lie and misinformation. If that's not malice - then it is most certainly an (intentional?) disservice. And I'm stuck with wondering about the motivation for the poster and post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

274. You see, "bald faced" is bollocks. "Lie" is going a bit too far.

The facts, as I laid out, are not that far off what the tweets claimed. Calling them "fraudulent" is ridiculous hyperbole. Fox News was regulated and ruled against by the British regulator; the regulator can withdraw cable licences, and has. Murdoch does has a far smaller influence in New Zealand than some other English-speaking countries, and a New Zealand political player has suggested that might be why New Zealand politics is not so poisonous.

I can give you the motivation for the post - the thread starter thinks Fox News is a danger to democracy. That is a motivation shared by practically everyone here, and the current President. They use erroneous tweets to argue this. The moral panic in this thread (and others - people have started other threads to condemn this one) is absurd.

[stopdiggin]

275. They are putting words in mouths

that never uttered them. That is both a lie, and fraudulent.

(somebody else, at one time, said something similar - that doesn't even come close to cutting it)

And the second paragraph of your post boils down to 'the ends justifies the means' - another exceedingly suspect tenet.

The OP contains flatly false information. That it remains up tells me something. And it is not a positive.

[Sympthsical]

173. People who are ok with authoritarianism always make the dumbest assumption

That when the time comes to shove people against the wall, it is their side that will be holding the guns.

How sure are you of that?

Really?

[betsuni]

180. Fake "Why didn't/don't Democrats stop ____ ?" Because government only means Democrats.

[Dorian Gray]

184. The whole Premise of those tweets

is Incorrect.

The UK did not ban fox news.

And Jacinda ARdern never said any such thing. (The tweeter even managed to misspell her name.)


This is a completely untrue series of tweets that people here are taking at face value AND arguing about how we need to be like them and restrict speech.


While I agree 100% about the toxicity of Fox News, I am REALLY kind of upset that so many here are willing to take quotes at face value. Confirmation Bias is real, and it's a problem.

[sl8]

189. Yes. And it's now the top recommended post on DU.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

185. Fox​ viewers are less likely to believe lies after being paid to watch CNN for 30 days: study

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142898710

[The King of Prussia]

190. This is currently showing as the Greatest thread on the Home Page

But the original post quotes two easily checked lies.

Not a good look.

[BlackSkimmer]

193. But I doubt the OP will take it down.

I’ve seen this before. An OP proven false,meet the poster won’t take it down.

One wonders about motive.

[Celerity]

212. it makes the board look foolish, and hurts credibility

[BlackSkimmer]

234. Yep, as I said I've seen it before.

There seems to be no consequences for this whatsoever.

Hit and run OP anyway.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

199. Is it true these quotes are apocryphal?

If the answer is yes this thread should be deleted.

[Celerity]

210. yes, they both have been comprehensively debunked, yet it remains up

[WhiskeyGrinder]

202. lol this fuckin thread

[sarisataka]

248. It just keeps going...

And revealing

[MarineCombatEngineer]

206. Why is this thread still up?

What's the agenda here?

[Celerity]

209. good questions

It is shambolic.

[Dial H For Hero]

211. It certainly demonstrates the authoritarian streak of many on this site.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

213. It certainly does,

I'm quite disturbed by the attitude towards the 1A by some here.

[Jetheels]

215. Also shows how people comment on here without checking whether something is even factual.

Which would take them 2 minutes. Sad.
And using arguments that don’t even hold weight.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

221. There's lots of topics that will do that round here nt

[Tommy Carcetti]

222. You should self-delete. nt

Last edited Mon Apr 4, 2022, 11:14 AM - Edit history (1)

[UnderThisLaw]

251. The usual

pearls being clutched by the usual suspects

[Jedi Guy]

255. Hmmm.

The usual pearls being clutched by the usual suspects.

The usual people calling out disinformation and defending freedom of expression from authoritarian bullshit. FTFY.

[UnderThisLaw]

267. Guilty conscience?

Maybe consider fixing that instead of failed attempts to fix what I post

[Jedi Guy]

277. Not in the slightest.

I feel no guilt whatsoever for defending freedom of expression from authoritarian bullshit. Why on earth would I?

[UnderThisLaw]

282. Interesting interpretation

of my question. I’m not going to dispute your self proclaimed champion of free speech persona, I simply don’t care. I was more interested in your willingness to take personal affront at my remarks, but based on the replies this far that becoming uninteresting too

[Jedi Guy]

283. K

[Celerity]

264. nice to see you using a sexist trope defending disinformation that has been definitively debunked

[stopdiggin]

273. I'm four square against posting lies and misinformation

on DU. And I don't own any pearls to clutch.

[UnderThisLaw]

281. That's nice

Hopefully you’re consistent in that application

[stopdiggin]

286. I find it fairly easy to operate within those

(very modest) parameters.
(and when I screw up - as I'm occasionally wont to do - I try to own it, and correct it if possible)
---- ----

[Raine]

253. First Amendment which should be supported on a site like DU!!! nt

[Mariana]

268. You would think so, but I guess we learn something new every day. nt.