4 ms·

Worth mentioning that public access channels are normally something like your local version of PBS. For Brits maybe something like BBC but at much smaller regi

by lithos 7y ago

Worth mentioning that public access channels are normally something like your local version of PBS. For Brits maybe something like BBC but at much smaller regional scale. In many cases they are extensively funded by tax payers. ___ And the fact that these were channels pretty much in existence due to taxpayers. Made them a great target to turn more places into a public forum, in hopes of it also having a ruling that affects social media. Which is why people were worried about it affecting social media.

ghaff 7y ago
IANAL (and haven't read the opinions) but it seems as if the general situation with public access channels could have allowed for a very narrowly crafted opinion that said the provider was a state actor in this very particular case. But it is a potentially slippery slope. ADDED: SCOTUSblog has a writeup. In general, the split decision seems mostly a disagreement over which rather specific facts apply. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-first-amendment-does-not-apply-to-private-operator-of-public-access-channels/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-ho...
xenadu02 7y ago
Note that PBS is mostly funded by donations and public access channels are a different thing - usually part of the cable franchise agreement with the local city.
pmoriarty 7y ago
"public access channels are normally something like your local version of PBS. For Brits maybe something like BBC but at much smaller regional scale." I don't think that's accurate at all. Public access channels are TV stations which will broadcast content created by any member of the community. I don't know how they are now, but decades ago in NYC all sorts of bizarre shit got broadcast on public access, from weird conspiracy theories to borderline pornographic material to awful performance art project some NYU or SVA student slapped together. The main thing all the content had in common was that it was ultra-low-budget, since it was usually created by a single person on a cheap video camera. It was absolutely nothing even remotely like the BBC or PBS, which are both organizations with significant funding and a highly professional staff of people working for them. Most importantly, the BBC and PBS create their own content, while on public access channels the content is created by members of the community. Usually, on public access there's some kind of signup roster where you as a community member put your name in a free slot, and when your time comes you get to play your video. Some public access stations might let community members use their studios or their equipment, but for the most part you're on your own. The closest thing I could compare it to would be youtube, but without any advertising or search or choice of what to watch. As a viewer, you just had to watch whatever video a random community member played at the time you turned your TV to that station. 99.9% of the time, the content was absolutely bottom of the barrel amateur garbage which probably had close to zero viewers. Frankly, I'm surprised these stations still exist, as these days most people probably get their random user-generated videos from youtube.

by lithos 7y ago

ghaff 7y ago

IANAL (and haven't read the opinions) but it seems as if the general situation with public access channels could have allowed for a very narrowly crafted opinion that said the provider was a state actor in this very particular case. But it is a potentially slippery slope. ADDED: SCOTUSblog has a writeup. In general, the split decision seems mostly a disagreement over which rather specific facts apply. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-holds-that-first-amendment-does-not-apply-to-private-operator-of-public-access-channels/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/opinion-analysis-court-ho...

xenadu02 7y ago

Note that PBS is mostly funded by donations and public access channels are a different thing - usually part of the cable franchise agreement with the local city.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"public access channels are normally something like your local version of PBS. For Brits maybe something like BBC but at much smaller regional scale." I don't think that's accurate at all. Public access channels are TV stations which will broadcast content created by any member of the community. I don't know how they are now, but decades ago in NYC all sorts of bizarre shit got broadcast on public access, from weird conspiracy theories to borderline pornographic material to awful performance art project some NYU or SVA student slapped together. The main thing all the content had in common was that it was ultra-low-budget, since it was usually created by a single person on a cheap video camera. It was absolutely nothing even remotely like the BBC or PBS, which are both organizations with significant funding and a highly professional staff of people working for them. Most importantly, the BBC and PBS create their own content, while on public access channels the content is created by members of the community. Usually, on public access there's some kind of signup roster where you as a community member put your name in a free slot, and when your time comes you get to play your video. Some public access stations might let community members use their studios or their equipment, but for the most part you're on your own. The closest thing I could compare it to would be youtube, but without any advertising or search or choice of what to watch. As a viewer, you just had to watch whatever video a random community member played at the time you turned your TV to that station. 99.9% of the time, the content was absolutely bottom of the barrel amateur garbage which probably had close to zero viewers. Frankly, I'm surprised these stations still exist, as these days most people probably get their random user-generated videos from youtube.