4 ms·

The Fairness Doctrine was not struck down as unconstitutional by the courts, the supreme court upheld it several times. It was Reagan's FCC that unilaterally st

The Fairness Doctrine was not struck down as unconstitutional by the courts, the supreme court upheld it several times. It was Reagan's FCC that unilaterally struck it down. And that led directly to the rise in prominence of right-wing talk starting with Rush Limbaugh which became the template for other right-wing broadcasts including Fox News.

akersten 6y ago
My mistake, it was indeed undone by the FCC rather than the courts. I could have sworn it was undone by SCOTUS, but I guess a refresher is needed every once in a while. Regardless, I think the main point from the proceedings is: it was only found constitutional because of limited airwaves available (i.e. physical constraint of the medium, or exclusive government licensing). The same rule would not be constitutional if it applied broadly to "the press."[0] In that sense, my point remains: there's nothing intrinsically exclusive about the medium of Google's websites that would prevent another from competing for the same "airwaves" (other than their perceived popularity), so a requirement that Google shares its "airtime" with others would not be supported by the precedent. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decisions_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decision...
- root_axis 6y ago
  I think the fairness doctrine is a great litmus test for intellectual honestly on this topic. Anyone who is in favor of regulating Google and Facebook's speech should also be in favor of regulating Fox News and other platforms that are dominated by conservative politics.
  - burfog 6y ago
    No. I'll classify Fox News with other media, like Vox and Slate and Buzzfeed. (for the articles and shows at least, not necessarily the paid advertisements) I'll classify Google and Facebook with other communication platforms, like T-Mobile and FedEx. Paid advertisements probably go in this category too, even if appearing within the other category.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      Why would you classify Google and Facebook in the same category as T-Mobile?
      - burfog 6y ago
        Individuals use them to communicate. Personal messages ("Happy birthday to Root Axis!") are passed around by ordinary people. FedEx, T-Mobile, Google, and Facebook are all similar in this way. Individuals who decide to run news segment on Fox News get denied, just the same as they would if they decide to run an article in Slate or Salon or The Atlantic. To communicate on a platform in that category, one must get hired or convince an employee that an interview (which would be tightly controlled) is beneficial to the employee.
        root_axis 6y ago
        Well there is no such distinction with regard to current law, so I'll assume you're discussing what you believe ought to be. So from that perspective, why should Google be treated differently from Fox News simply because Fox News has a higher standard for publication than Google?
        burfog 6y ago
        In current law, the distinction is called common carrier status. Enforcement is lax and irregular, and it mostly isn't being properly applied to the tech giants. We don't let the phone company disconnect phone calls in which people complain about the phone company, or about China, or about the governor. We don't let FedEx decide that you can't ship an unauthorized biography of the FedEx CEO. Common carrier status has never applied to news media. The closest we ever had was the fairness doctrine, which is gone and wasn't the same thing anyway. Fox News is clearly news media. Most of what we call "Google" is clearly not news media.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > Common carrier status has never applied to news media It never applied to websites either, so why do you want it to apply to websites but not "news media"? Do you believe that Fox News should be allowed to delete comments from foxnews.com?

akersten 6y ago

My mistake, it was indeed undone by the FCC rather than the courts. I could have sworn it was undone by SCOTUS, but I guess a refresher is needed every once in a while. Regardless, I think the main point from the proceedings is: it was only found constitutional because of limited airwaves available (i.e. physical constraint of the medium, or exclusive government licensing). The same rule would not be constitutional if it applied broadly to "the press."[0] In that sense, my point remains: there's nothing intrinsically exclusive about the medium of Google's websites that would prevent another from competing for the same "airwaves" (other than their perceived popularity), so a requirement that Google shares its "airtime" with others would not be supported by the precedent. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decisions_of_the_United_States_Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decision...

root_axis 6y ago
I think the fairness doctrine is a great litmus test for intellectual honestly on this topic. Anyone who is in favor of regulating Google and Facebook's speech should also be in favor of regulating Fox News and other platforms that are dominated by conservative politics.
- burfog 6y ago
  No. I'll classify Fox News with other media, like Vox and Slate and Buzzfeed. (for the articles and shows at least, not necessarily the paid advertisements) I'll classify Google and Facebook with other communication platforms, like T-Mobile and FedEx. Paid advertisements probably go in this category too, even if appearing within the other category.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    Why would you classify Google and Facebook in the same category as T-Mobile?
    - burfog 6y ago
      Individuals use them to communicate. Personal messages ("Happy birthday to Root Axis!") are passed around by ordinary people. FedEx, T-Mobile, Google, and Facebook are all similar in this way. Individuals who decide to run news segment on Fox News get denied, just the same as they would if they decide to run an article in Slate or Salon or The Atlantic. To communicate on a platform in that category, one must get hired or convince an employee that an interview (which would be tightly controlled) is beneficial to the employee.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        Well there is no such distinction with regard to current law, so I'll assume you're discussing what you believe ought to be. So from that perspective, why should Google be treated differently from Fox News simply because Fox News has a higher standard for publication than Google?
        burfog 6y ago
        In current law, the distinction is called common carrier status. Enforcement is lax and irregular, and it mostly isn't being properly applied to the tech giants. We don't let the phone company disconnect phone calls in which people complain about the phone company, or about China, or about the governor. We don't let FedEx decide that you can't ship an unauthorized biography of the FedEx CEO. Common carrier status has never applied to news media. The closest we ever had was the fairness doctrine, which is gone and wasn't the same thing anyway. Fox News is clearly news media. Most of what we call "Google" is clearly not news media.
        root_axis 6y ago
        > Common carrier status has never applied to news media It never applied to websites either, so why do you want it to apply to websites but not "news media"? Do you believe that Fox News should be allowed to delete comments from foxnews.com?