Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 4h

The wife of a friend is named Arwen.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 6h

And this has been the case since long, long before Trump.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 6h

Because federal officials are by law immune from being sued for most torts — including defamation — for stuff they say in the scope of their official duties.

And the president at a press conf or the Sec’y of HHS at a press conf or a hearing are most certainly in their official duties.

1 1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 17h

No, it couldn't. The "shouting fire" case was overruled over 50 years ago.

And inciting violence is protected speech.

It's speech intended to and likely to incite *imminent* lawless action which isn't protected. And courts hold "imminent" to mean essentially right now. It's a very high bar.

1 1 3

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 17h

Also, the FD had nothing to do with ownership. The relaxation of ownership caps was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

3

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 17h

Limbaugh was running his hate radio operation for 2yrs under the Fairness Doctrine. The FD didn't apply to shows, only to stations. And it didn't require stations to do much. An hour or two of programming *per week*, at low-audience times, was sufficient.

1 3

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 17h

"inciting violence" isn't illegal and is in fact protected by the First Amendment.

It's only speech intended to and likely to incite "imminent lawless action" that's unprotected and the courts have long & consistently held "imminent" to mean essentially right "now". It's a very tough bar to clear.

3 4

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 17h

"News organizations" aren't licensed. Individual over-the-air stations are what are licensed.

1 2

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 17h

There's nothing criminal about that at all. (Vile though it may be!)

To be criminal it has to be intended to and likely to incite *imminent* lawless action (see Brandenburg v. Ohio). "Imminent" is held by the courts to basically mean "right now".

That statement doesn't pass the imminence test.

2

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

Frequencies from just above the AM band (so say 1900kHz or so) to around 30MHz will act this way.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

It's just that those frequencies are such that the signals can be heard for thousands of miles due to bouncing off the ionosphere.

It's really impressive, actually. I've had a voice conversation across literally 10,000 miles using a 72' single-wire antenna and not even one hundred watts of power.

2 2

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

To be clear, they aren't licensed AS national broadcasters. They are still just individually licensed commercial radio stations who license states what frequency or frequencies they can broadcast one.

1 2

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

If the govt hands enforcement powers to your silly "panel" it is now part of the government as far as the the First Amendment is concerned. That's well-established in law. So your little scheme hasn't changed anything.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

The only thing that can legally "determine that" is a judge (and jury, if a jury trial is demanded) and there's no way to fob it off to some alleged "expert, non-partisan, non-governmental panel".

The thing you are missing over and over is that only govt can enforce things.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

No movie studio is required by law to submit a movie for rating.

No theater is required by law to only show rated movies.

No theater is required by law to enforce the rating (i.e. stop people from seeing it if they are too young).

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

The MPAA is a completely private entity with no force of law behind it, and the government does not and cannot enforce its requirement.

1 1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 21h

That's even assuming it's not a fed.

1 2

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 22h

1) He didn't need to be a citizen to sell tabloid rags or to set up Fox News
2) He wasn't "fast tracked" in the first place. He was a legal resident of the US for 10+ years. You or I virtually anyone could have become a citizen just by asking and passing the test after that.

Reposted by Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's

Patrick Chovanec @prchovanec.bsky.social · 23h

This is literally how the Roman Republic fell.

Aaron Rupar @atrupar.com · 1d

Trump: "I had a very wealthy person who called -- a donor, a great gentleman -- and he said, 'if there's any money necessary, shortfall, for the paying of the troops, then I will pay it.' Meaning he will pay it. How about that?"

10 50 270

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 1d

And because that govt picking-and-choosing isn't true of anything else there's no loopholes in the 1A for the other media and so the govt doesn't get to regulate content beyond standard stuff applicable to all media (like no CSAM).

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 1d

OTA is special in the eyes of the courts because the govt has to pick and choose who gets to transmit on what frequency. That's not true of anything else. And so the courts created a loophole in the First Amendment that allows some limited govt regulation of over-the-air-content.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 1d

Just like they can sue book & magazine publishers, movie studios, people who post stuff online, etc. for defamation.

Cable shouldn't (and isn't) treated any differently than any other non-over-the-air medium.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 1d

It *is* OK (legally) to lie to the public in the name of free speech. SCOTUS has made that clear many times, probably most recently in the Alvarez cases.

Cable is off-limits to *government* regulation of its content. People remain free to sue for defamation.

1

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 1d

You are lying right now. You didn't say "there wasn't a majority". You very falsely said that cable wasn't "common" until the 1990s. I mean we can all read what you wrote. It's right there!

Two all the way, a coffee milk, and a Del's @ri.oldfolkshome.org · 1d

There’s no First Amendment right to defame and never has been.

Defamation has never been considered protected free speech in the US.

Also, either your high school civics teachers were bad or you slept through it. The Bill of Rights only limits the govt, not private entities. And never has.