5 ms·
> The freedom to express surely also includes the freedom not to express. If that were true, we'd never have had the Fairness Doctrine, and the debate over Net
by leereeves 6y ago
> The freedom to express surely also includes the freedom not to express.
If that were true, we'd never have had the Fairness Doctrine, and the debate over Net Neutrality would have been over before it began.
- ineedasername 6y agoThe fairness doctrine doesn't exist anymore. It went away when it was decided it wasn't a good thing and went against free speech. Compelled speech or forced speech is not free speech.
- leereeves 6y agoThe Fairness Doctrine wasn't ruled unconstitional, it ended because the FCC chose to end it, which does not establish a legal precedent. A similar rule, the equal-time rule, still exists. Arguments that it violates the First Amendment have never worked in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
- ineedasername 6y agoThe FCC chose to end it for the reasons I mentioned. The equal time rule has so many exceptions that it might as well not exist. Also, to my knowledge, it has not been extensively reviewed by the Supreme Court on constitutionality grounds, probably because of those exceptions that mean there's never really a case to fight over. The one case I could find wasn't fighting the rule itself, but rather it's interpretation.
- belltaco 6y agoThe Fairness doctrine only applied to broadcast licenses, to public frequencies because they're a limited resource. It's really hard to argue that websites are a limited public resource.
- ethbr0 6y agoI think based on market share of "all public / semi-public social media discourse", and the relatively few platforms with high shares, they are effectively a limited resources.