3 ms·
The government already owns a support foundation for publicly-owned broadcasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting https://en.w
by nonameiguess 5y ago
The government already owns a support foundation for publicly-owned broadcasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadca...). Nothing about the 1st Amendment seems to prevent these broadcasters from restricting access to their airwaves. Anyone with a camera or mic can't just walk into a PBS studio and start transmitting whatever message they want. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1972 that created the CPB does stipulate that it has to be objective and balanced when dealing with controversial subjects, but it doesn't say every single person with a voice, no matter what they want to say, needs to be allowed to speak.
I aint no lawyer, of course, but this doesn't seem inconsistent with other arenas of free speech. Even literal public squares don't have infinite space. If some group tried to go occupy a government-owned park with a few thousand people more or less permanently, preventing anyone else from ever getting access, that would be illegal. Rationing and rate-limiting are not censorship, though presumably at least some people subject to it will probably try to say they are.
- jdrc 5y agoBut twitter isn't inherently limited by airtime or bandwidth, it's in principle infinite.
- shkkmo 5y agoPBS is a publisher, not a platform, and is legally liable for the content they publish in a way that Twitter is not. > Rationing and rate-limiting are not censorship, though presumably at least some people subject to it will probably try to say they are. When rationing and rate-limiting are applied on the basis of the content of the speech, then yes is is absolutely censorship and there are supreme court cases to back that up.