4 ms·

Well, for example, here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
ummm, the only US section there is: >A Florida right of reply law (referring to print media) was overturned by Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), while a FCC policy (referring to broadcast media) was affirmed in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The FCC policy was completely overturned in 1987. It's called the Fairness Doctrine. Some people believe that ending it was a mistake, but it was ended.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  As was said: "Twitter is within the letter of the law." I don't think anyone's saying they don't have the legal right to do what they're doing. But there's such a thing as moral right, and the existence of fairness doctrine and right of reply shows that a moral right to fair access and representation is not a niche view.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    You mean the prior existence of the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was abolished with general support. > Reporters argued that they, not the FCC, should make decisions about balancing the fairness of stories. They believed that the fairness doctrine had a chilling effect by deterring them from tackling controversial issues rather than worrying about whether they could meet the FCC’s fairness standards. > By the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was losing clout. The deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration and the technological advances that were rendering scarcity arguments moot combined to pressure the FCC to abandon the doctrine. In 1987 the FCC formally abolished it. (from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctrine https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctri...) The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast media, it never applied to cable or print media, which FB and Twitter are conceptually much closer to. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that a book publisher should be required to print rebuttals to a recent title. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that cable media had to follow the same pre-1987 FCC guidelines. So, yes, I would say that attempting to apply a policy (and note: policy, not law) that was abandoned more than 30 years ago to internet messaging systems is a niche view.
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      > The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast media, it never applied to cable or print media, which FB and Twitter are conceptually much closer to. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that a book publisher should be required to print rebuttals to a recent title. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that cable media had to follow the same pre-1987 FCC guidelines. To be quite forthright - maybe they should have! I mean, I for one will argue that. I don't have evidence how much support that view has, sadly. But it seems to me that there should be a line drawn between an editorial service and a utility service, and a utility service should not be permitted to act in an editorial fashion. (In other words, I am a GPL liberal rather than BSD liberal.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

ummm, the only US section there is: >A Florida right of reply law (referring to print media) was overturned by Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), while a FCC policy (referring to broadcast media) was affirmed in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The FCC policy was completely overturned in 1987. It's called the Fairness Doctrine. Some people believe that ending it was a mistake, but it was ended.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
As was said: "Twitter is within the letter of the law." I don't think anyone's saying they don't have the legal right to do what they're doing. But there's such a thing as moral right, and the existence of fairness doctrine and right of reply shows that a moral right to fair access and representation is not a niche view.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  You mean the prior existence of the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine was abolished with general support. > Reporters argued that they, not the FCC, should make decisions about balancing the fairness of stories. They believed that the fairness doctrine had a chilling effect by deterring them from tackling controversial issues rather than worrying about whether they could meet the FCC’s fairness standards. > By the 1980s, the fairness doctrine was losing clout. The deregulatory nature of the Reagan administration and the technological advances that were rendering scarcity arguments moot combined to pressure the FCC to abandon the doctrine. In 1987 the FCC formally abolished it. (from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctrine https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctri...) The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast media, it never applied to cable or print media, which FB and Twitter are conceptually much closer to. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that a book publisher should be required to print rebuttals to a recent title. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that cable media had to follow the same pre-1987 FCC guidelines. So, yes, I would say that attempting to apply a policy (and note: policy, not law) that was abandoned more than 30 years ago to internet messaging systems is a niche view.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    > The fairness doctrine only ever applied to broadcast media, it never applied to cable or print media, which FB and Twitter are conceptually much closer to. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that a book publisher should be required to print rebuttals to a recent title. Nobody ever (seriously) argued that cable media had to follow the same pre-1987 FCC guidelines. To be quite forthright - maybe they should have! I mean, I for one will argue that. I don't have evidence how much support that view has, sadly. But it seems to me that there should be a line drawn between an editorial service and a utility service, and a utility service should not be permitted to act in an editorial fashion. (In other words, I am a GPL liberal rather than BSD liberal.)