3 ms·
Maybe they should black out current events and all information about political candidates. That would get the attention of a lot of people. They might be ensna
by buss 15y ago
Maybe they should black out current events and all information about political candidates. That would get the attention of a lot of people.
They might be ensnared in the equal exposure laws during an election season, though.
- digitalsushi 15y agoAs a website, wikipedia was not eligible for the 1934 Communications Act which describes the law of which you speak.
- buss 15y agoYep, that's the one I was thinking about. Thanks, and you're correct!
- gojomo 15y agoThere are no 'equal exposure' laws in the USA for websites or any other media. There once was an FCC 'fairness doctrine' – a regulatory policy but not legislative law – which was set aside 24 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
- buss 15y agoThere are such laws, but they only apply to political candidates, and only on TV & Radio. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule This definitely doesn't apply to websites, though, so I was half wrong.
- gojomo 15y agoAha, yes, I had conflated that in my mind with the late 'fairness doctrine'. Thanks for the correcting pointer. Looks like the equal-time rule specifically triggers when one candidate is given free time on TV/radio (that doesn't fall under certain news/documentary exceptions). So even on TV/radio, a 'blackout', rather than favoring any one candidate, would be OK. I suppose there could be campaign finance rules that come into play in some cases – if time/space was considered a undeclared donation. There was some noise about this with regard to the FEC and political bloggers in past US election cycles.