FOX News Network should not only be sued for $1.6 Billion dollars...

[kentuck]

...they should not be permitted to do business in this country.

Today's bombshell report of their role in the Big Lie, and giving oxygen to Donald Trump and the Republican Party's propaganda, clarifies their role in the crisis our nation is now confronting.

Their belief that American "media" was liberal-oriented and that the country needed a "fair and balanced" response to the corporate "liberals" in the news media, led them to create their network as a counter to the news that Americans were receiving.

They chose to be a propagandist arm of the Republican Party. Facts and truths were not a prerequisite to their reporting - only the advancement of the Republican agenda.

They have shown themselves to be a direct and constant threat to our democracy.

When Donald Trump ran as a Republican, they had no choice but to support him. In making that decision, they also chose to support all of his lies.

In doing so, it led to his election in 2016. It led to the anti-vaccine rebellion when we were in the midst of a world-wide pandemic. It led to the insurrection of January 6th, 2021. Their decision to push the lies and propaganda, when they knew it was lies and propaganda, severely damaged our constitutional right to a free press and for the people to be fairly and accurately informed of events going on around them.

Whether or not the Wall St Journal or NY Post or other holdings should be banned is open to debate, but FOX News Propaganda Network should cease to exist.

[montanacowboy]

1. FOX is NOT a news org

There must be some way the FCC can pull their broadcasting license

[spanone]

5. FCC doesn't regulate cable

[Joinfortmill]

11. This is what the FCC states they regulate.

https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do#:~:text=About%20the%20FCC&text=The%20Federal%20Communications%20Commission%20regulates,of%20Columbia%20and%20U.S.%20territories.

The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation. In its work facing economic opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the agency capitalizes on its competencies in:

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Comms itself

Not content

[Joinfortmill]

18. Looked that up, too, and found this. Very interesting, note "hoaxes, broadcast news distortion"

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-speech#:~:text=Over%2Dthe%2Dair%20broadcasts%20by,restraints%20and%20obligations%20on%20broadcasters.

Nevertheless, what power the FCC has to regulate content varies by electronic platform. Over-the-air broadcasts by local TV and radio stations are subject to certain speech restraints, but speech transmitted by cable or satellite TV systems generally is not. The FCC does not regulate online content.

The FCC does impose certain restraints and obligations on broadcasters. Speech regulations are confined to specific topics, which usually have been identified by Congress through legislation or adopted by the FCC through full notice-and-comment rulemaking or adjudicatory proceedings. These topics include:

indecency,
obscenity,
sponsorship identification,
conduct of on-air contests,
hoaxes,
commercial content in children's TV programming,
broadcast news distortion,
accessibility to emergency information on television, and
inappropriate use of Emergency Alert System warning tones for entertainment or other non-emergency purposes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. Note

That it says broadcast…cable is not broadcast

[Joinfortmill]

29. So this seems to be a huge issue. I found this article by ABA. Worth reading entire article

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2021-summer/worse-a-wasteland-protecting-consumers-cable-news-the-public-interest/

American Bar Association

'The FCC will not need to reinvent the wheel to regulate cable news. The news distortion framework, although currently only applicable to broadcast television, should apply to cable television. The commission has already asserted jurisdiction over cable network content in the case of obscene material, as it is not protected by the First Amendment. News distortion should be treated similarly because of the special impact of televised news and the lesser First Amendment standard for reckless or knowing falsehoods...

To decide whether there is an implied statement of fact in a news report, the FCC should follow recent court decisions and view the statement from the standpoint of the reasonable consumer. As a recent decision found, the test is “not how readers did interpret [the statement], or even how they would interpret them. Rather, it is whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that a contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact. Demonstrating that some readers did not, even if true, would not be dispositive.” While context will inform the meaning of ambiguous statements, a literal falsehood—a provably false assertion of fact—does not become ambiguous simply by being stated in the course of statements of opinion. The context of a statement is important with respect to other factors under the news distortion standard, including whether the circumstances indicate knowledge of falsity, but should not be used to convert statements of fact into mere statements of opinion.

The FCC has the authority and obligation to regulate cable networks. Critics might argue that the Cable Communications Policy Act does not provide for new restrictions. However, the news distortion framework predates the Cable Communications Policy Act, meaning the objection would not apply.'

[kentuck]

32. Interesting.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

33. Once again

I’m shocked at the number of people on DU who favor censorship.

[brooklynite]

40. Censorship is perfectly acceptable....as long as WE don't like the message.

Now, if a REPUBLICAN Administration tried to censor voices...

[Polybius]

50. Here's a post from a user wanting to censor conservative and gun Channels on YouTube

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=3035926

[mahatmakanejeeves]

54. I'm not.

There’s a huge contingent at DU who hate the First Amendment.

They’re zombies. They’ll never die.

[onenote]

36. Hate to tell you, but that ABA article is a joke.

It was written by three first year associates (actually, they may have been summer interns when they wrote it), none of whom is a constitutional or communications law practitioner. Among the most fundamental of mistakes they make: failing to recognize the significance of the fact that the FCC's exercise of authority over the content of cable speech followed the enactment of statutory provisions giving them that authority.

I'm soon to retire after practicing communications law for over forty years. My experience includes working on the key court cases involving regulation of cable television content, including the Wilkinson, Cruz, Roy City, and Playboy Enterprises cases. I have no doubt at all that the FCC would not attempt to exercise regulatory authority over the content of cable news channels in the absence of statutory authorization and I'm fairly dubious that such a statute would be upheld by the courts.

[WarGamer]

6. For the 827th time here on DU...

The FCC does NOT regulate Cable TV.

[Joinfortmill]

31. Good article about that from ABA

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/publications/communications_lawyer/2021-summer/worse-a-wasteland-protecting-consumers-cable-news-the-public-interest/

[brooklynite]

41. An opinion, at variance with the First Amendment.

The FCC doesn't regulate broadcast channels because of LAW.

It regulates them as part of the terms required to lease broadcast frequencies from the government.

[onenote]

43. Not a good article. See post #36

[kentuck]

9. If the law and the Constitution cannot do anything about a lawless president...?

What can they do about a lying, reckless propagandist like Rupert Murdoch?

[mwooldri]

10. FCC no. But FTC (Federal Trade Commission)?

A news channel that's anything but. Shouldn't be allowed to call itself a news channel IMO.

Only way the Federal Communications Commission can regulate Fox "News" would be if they had tighter rein over satellite transmissions. And even then...

[Drum]

2. If/When FOX loses this case, they will face a reckoning from advertisers, have no fear

[ShazzieB]

34. Oh, I hope you're right.

I really, really hope so! 🤞🤞🤞

[Johonny]

37. They don't make money from advertising

Their money come from cable subscriptions. The charge the highest fees in the business. To hurt them, you need to get them off basic cable. They don't belong there anyway. Make Conservatives pay for that package, not all of us.

[onenote]

44. Fox News does not charge the highest fees in the business

ESPN charges the highest fees -- by a very wide margin.

ESPN charges more than $7.00 per subscriber. Fox News charges around $2.20, pretty much the same (or a little less ) than TNT.

[peppertree]

3. Ted Turner famously described Murdoch as "the most evil man I've ever met"

And he knew him better than most.

Murdoch made a name for himself by helping topple leftist Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in Australia - felled by a 1975 administrative coup led by the (unelected) Governor-General, and normalized by Murdoch's News Corp.

With the support of John Birchers in the U.S., he basically imported that model of "journalism" here - and has, with the help of Roger Ailes, etc., refined it constantly ever since.

Their collusion in the January 6th coup attempt was the natural result.

That said, Wall Street and the CEOcracy still like Farce News - such that we're unlikely to be rid of them anytime soon.

Such is the world.

[spanone]

4. If they can just continue business as usual.....

we are screwn

[doc03]

12. The thing is their viewers will hear nothing on Fox about this other than

it was Biden using the DOJ to attack Fox. The texts they will not hear it on Fox and if they do
somewhere else it is "fake news".

[spanone]

13. That's the entire reason for this 'weaponization committee' bullshit

[Jarqui]

7. A lot of the US vs THEM partisan bickering is due to FOX

They promote it.

They're dividing the country which leaves it at risk of being conquered or taken advantage of.
They're dividing people who are on the same team.

We're bickering about a stolen election that was never stolen for example.

Remember "Death Panels"? Or "Obama was born in Kenya"

The cost to the country is a heck of a lot more than $1.6 billion (damages for Dominion)

[Joinfortmill]

8. Amen to that.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. It never ceases to amaze me

How many posters on this site promote violation of free speech rights.

[kentuck]

17. It amazes me at how many posters think free speech means anything or everything ....

.. a person or organization wishes to say is protected by the First Amendment.

[Ocelot II]

19. It is, unless it's defamation or porn.

[kentuck]

20. I can't define porn...

..but I know it when I see it.

But I doubt that Big Lies and hoaxes are permitted?

[Ocelot II]

21. Big lies and hoaxes are protected unless they are defamatory

or give rise to actionable fraud. The Dominion case is about defamation and is an example of unprotected speech - it caused actual harm to a specific party.

[kentuck]

22. In my opinion...

their lies and propaganda have led to actionable fraud. Defamation alone seems like a very small limitation on a propaganda network, however the present laws may now be written.

[Ocelot II]

25. That is not the opinion of the courts, however.

Actionable fraud is a tort (wrong) in which a specific person or business has been demonstrably and tangibly, that is, monetarily, harmed through specific acts of deception. Propaganda isn't that.

[kentuck]

30. I suspect that Dominion is not the first entity or person, nor the last, to be harmed by FOX "News"

I think of the lies they told against Hillary and how they "reported" on the Ben Ghazi hearings.

Some were harmed reputationally (is that a word) and monetarily.

They have carried their "propaganda" and their style of reporting to the edges of "free speech".

Could any of those folks have sued?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

24. With few exceptions

It is.

[global1]

16. When Murdoch & Fox Loses The Dominion Case - The Judge Should Mandate Fox To....

place on their broadcasts a statement that in essence says that they faked or lied to their listeners and make them run that statement prior to and after every broadcast of every program going forward.

I want the followers of Fox to know that they were conned and considered as fools to believe the lies and fake news that was broadcast to them over the years.

I think something like this would even be more punishment to Fox & Murdoch - than a steep financial penalty that they would have to pay.

I would still want them to pay a financial penalty. One so steep that maybe it would even bankrupt the company and Murdoch out of existence.

[I posted this as a response to an earlier post about this lawsuit.]

[tritsofme]

26. What kind of wannabe dictator bullshit is this?

The First Amendment, is in fact, a thing, and you can’t ban the media outlets that make you mad.

Pathetic to see here.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

27. There is a thin

But noticeable authoritarian streak at DU, mostly around free speech, IMO.

[kentuck]

28. However, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

And neither is the First Amendment.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. I get it

You want to disallow speech that you don’t like.

Fortunately, that’s not your call.

[onenote]

51. Before embracing that phrase, you might want to consider its origins

The phrase "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" was used by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in his dissent in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949 case in which the majority, in an opinion written by William O. Douglas, held that a "breach of peace" ordinance of the City of Chicago banning speech that "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance" was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Jackson would have upheld the ordinance's constitutionality, declaring that "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

The sentiment behind the phrase, if not the phrase itself, has been used to defend the forced relocation of Japanese during WWII, the limitations on civil liberties adopted as part of the Patriot Act and other steps taken after Sept. 11 (including the detention of prisoners in Guantanamo and the use of extreme measures to extract information from prisoners).

[onenote]

42. And lately, respect for the concept of due process has taken a hit from some DUers.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. Yep n/t

[womanofthehills]

55. OMG! Tell me about it !!

What’s worrisome is when someone reports your post because they disagree with you. And even worse and sometimes unbelievable- the DU jury agrees with them.

[drmeow]

35. "Their belief that American "media" was liberal-oriented"

None of them actually believed that - it is all part of the lie

[brooklynite]

38. On what legal basis would you sue or charge them?

And when the next Republican Administration comes in, do they get to decide which media outlets are a threat?

[Johonny]

39. Fox news should be removed from basic cable

And placed on a premium tier more fitting their charge fees and content. They're not news.

[Initech]

45. Fox News and the right wing echo chamber are the biggest threat facing this country right now.

I have no doubt that if Trumo were given a second term, or if god forbid, Ron Desantis became president, that they would go full Nazi and start executing their political opponents and anyone who didn't vote for these scumbags. And Fox and the right wing echo chamber media would be cheerleading their every move. I can't help but wonder if Europe and the rest of the world is watching in horror at what's going on here.

Fox must be stopped at all costs.

[sarcasmo]

48. Fox Entertainment with a disclaimer at the bottom 24/7 that says, Not News.

[lees1975]

49. Yep, shut 'em down.

[Mr. Sparkle]

52. I would love to see them sue the cable companies as well

they are putting out this bullshit as news, to their subscribers. Fox should be moved to the propaganda section with RT or removed from cable altogether.

[jmowreader]

56. I don't agree with suing them for $1.6 billion

I would very much prefer they be sued for all the equipment, satellite transponders and cable system access agreements that Fox News has. That’s gotta be less than $1.6 billion. You could turn Fox News into the Violence Channel and just run action-adventure and war films 24/7. It’ll be great. Lots of people would watch that.