3 ms·

Much appreciated, I am far clearer on the state of play for having read the links that you supplied. Clearer, but still thinking "wut?"; maybe even more so than

Much appreciated, I am far clearer on the state of play for having read the links that you supplied. Clearer, but still thinking "wut?"; maybe even more so than before. In your second link, to FCC consumer guides re broadcasting false information, it says, "It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge." And yes, I understand that this is for broadcasters - as in airwaves, the ether - but not for cable. What I do not understand, though, is why programming labelled and presented as "news", regardless of medium of transmission, distribution or platform, can't just be brought under that umbrella. Look where things have got to now; or I should say that from this side of the pond it doesn't look too healthy. As a metaphor (not a good one, I'll admit), if I go to a supermarket and buy a steak pie, and its label tells me that it is steak, then I have consumer rights guaranteeing that it is steak. If I were to go to a petrol (gas) station vending machine and buy a pie labelled steak, I would still expect it to be steak - and to have some right of redress if it were horse [1]. The outlet shouldn't affect anything. Food - and media products - presented for me to consume are available in many more places, outlets, delivery methods and via different technologies nowadays than when legislation was written. Thanks again for your time and trouble. Apologies for the metaphor, but it comes all too easily, if queasily, to us Brits: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal

jfengel 6y ago
The only reason they're able to regulate broadcast at all is because it's a scarce resource. Since only a few people could use it, they were able to get away with regulating them. Even they don't really use it: AM radio is full of outright hate speech, which is also legal as long as it can have any kind of fig leaf as "opinion". Other than that, there's really no limits at all. The First Amendment is pretty clear about that. They were more afraid of having the government clamp down on legitimate dissent than they were on illegitimate dissent. They had, after all, just fought a revolution, and one of the complaints was about newspaper and pamphlet publishers being suppressed. So you get to say anything you want, and if anything "news" gets even more leeway. It does feel like false advertising to say "Here is the news: grass is purple, llamas are a kind of tulip". I don't know if anybody has ever tried to apply false advertising to news media. It's kind of remarkable that false advertising is regulated at all, given the sacred place they give the First Amendment[1] -- and here[2] is a right wing think tank saying it's wrong. Yeah, that's pretty horrifying. As far as the Cato Institute is concerned, it should be perfectly legal to sell you horse meat labeled as beef. They'd probably tell you that it's up to you to do genetic testing on your meat, or maybe sign a contract with the grocer so that you can sue them for breach of contract. If you don't have a contract with Fox News to tell the truth, it's your problem. And if you live in a country where half the people believe a conspiracy theory promoted by freely-available news, that's also your problem. [1] https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html [2] https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-doctrine-commercial-speech-first-amendment-jurisprudence https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-...
- samizdis 6y ago
  Thanks again. If the pubs were open (we're locked down and drinking alone in our homes/park benches etc atm), I'd happily buy you a few ales - but probably bore you with my conversation. Cheers :-)

jfengel 6y ago

The only reason they're able to regulate broadcast at all is because it's a scarce resource. Since only a few people could use it, they were able to get away with regulating them. Even they don't really use it: AM radio is full of outright hate speech, which is also legal as long as it can have any kind of fig leaf as "opinion". Other than that, there's really no limits at all. The First Amendment is pretty clear about that. They were more afraid of having the government clamp down on legitimate dissent than they were on illegitimate dissent. They had, after all, just fought a revolution, and one of the complaints was about newspaper and pamphlet publishers being suppressed. So you get to say anything you want, and if anything "news" gets even more leeway. It does feel like false advertising to say "Here is the news: grass is purple, llamas are a kind of tulip". I don't know if anybody has ever tried to apply false advertising to news media. It's kind of remarkable that false advertising is regulated at all, given the sacred place they give the First Amendment[1] -- and here[2] is a right wing think tank saying it's wrong. Yeah, that's pretty horrifying. As far as the Cato Institute is concerned, it should be perfectly legal to sell you horse meat labeled as beef. They'd probably tell you that it's up to you to do genetic testing on your meat, or maybe sign a contract with the grocer so that you can sue them for breach of contract. If you don't have a contract with Fox News to tell the truth, it's your problem. And if you live in a country where half the people believe a conspiracy theory promoted by freely-available news, that's also your problem. [1] https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html [2] https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-doctrine-commercial-speech-first-amendment-jurisprudence https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/contrived-distinctions-...

samizdis 6y ago
Thanks again. If the pubs were open (we're locked down and drinking alone in our homes/park benches etc atm), I'd happily buy you a few ales - but probably bore you with my conversation. Cheers :-)