5 ms·
They don't "have more freedom in this area": they're not bound by it at all. They can ban whatever they want from their own platforms.
by ascorbic 6y ago
They don't "have more freedom in this area": they're not bound by it at all. They can ban whatever they want from their own platforms.
- Retric 6y agoThat’s not always true. Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule While it’s been revoked the FCC fairness doctrine was considered constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._FCC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Lion_Broadcasting_Co._v._F...
- ascorbic 6y agoRight, I meant they're not bound by the first amendment. There are plenty of other regulations that apply to specific outlets, but they're not rules to protect free speech
- jzb 6y agoThat's because the airwaves are public, so the FCC could regulate / require equal time in the public interest. A TV or radio station isn't operating entirely on its own dime - it's using a public resource, so it should be done in the public interest. There was no fairness doctrine applied to, say, newspapers.
- just_fred 6y agoThe internet is a public resource.
- josephcsible 6y agoNot in the same way the airwaves are. You can run your own network cable but everyone has to share the same limited airwaves.
- MattGaiser 6y agoIt is more a massive collection of the different resources of many different people.