3 ms·
That's free speech, protected so there's nothing that can be done about it. Or is there anything ...
by mrlonglong 5y ago
That's free speech, protected so there's nothing that can be done about it. Or is there anything ...
- weare138 5y agoA foreign state run entity like Sputnik is not protected under the Constitution. They're not US citizens.
- retrac 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_... There has not been much in the way of recent case law; one has to go back to the Sedition Act or the acts during WW II to find aggressive laws outright banning foreign propaganda. So it's hard to say quite where the line might be with its interaction with the current interpretation of the 1st amendment (which does apply to non-citizens). But the US federal government does likely have some constitutionally-valid powers to regulate, and perhaps restrict, foreign propaganda.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- phendrenad2 5y agoIs the owner actually paid by the Russian government? The article links to a paywall and isn't very clear.
- derbOac 5y agoAccording to Wikipedia, Radio Sputnik at least is state owned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Radio_services https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)#Radio_... So it would seem the owner is being paid by the Russian government, although it's not entirely clear. Seems fishy the "about" information is behind a paywall.
- vba616 5y ago>There has not been much in the way of recent case law I thought FARA was how they got a bunch of people from the Trump administration.