He's also dead wrong, but a lot of people share that mistaken view so it's not overly surprising.

The regulatory changes were more in the 90s (Telecommunications Act being the major one); the Fairness Doctrine hadn't been enforced in almost 20 years before it was ended. And no changes "exclude mainstream liberal and left arguments from wide dissemination."

Except when I did.

Like you would know the first characteristic of "sounding smart"

Double oof.

I'd even take 100K over the 650-700K we have today!

We know...anyone who is smarter than you, more knowledgeable than you, understands things you don't and has the temerity to point it out is MAGA.

We get it.

Editor of the Law Review, no doubt.

And even had you not mentioned the Fairness Doctrine at all (which you did), your statement about "back then entities could be sued for lying" is horseshit as well.

We know what you said. We can all see it.

Also, as this must be your first day on social media, I want to educate you. See, when you post or reply, unless you have preferences set that prevent it, people will read what you said and MAY respond to it. No invitation is needed.

Hope this helps.

...because if you meant pre-1987, any landmark will do.

Yet you specifically chose to mention the Fairness Doctrine and are now pretending it's coincidental to your "point".

And not at all. Media can't be "sued for lying" in and of itself. It can be sued for defamation, but that is a narrow 1st Amendment exception that includes "false statements of fact" as PART of its legal definition.

And you may as well have said "before Guns and Roses was a hot new band", then...

Remember when you said that "entities could be sued for lying" and referred to the Fairness Doctrine?

"Everyone smarter than me who shows how stupid I am is MAGA" 😂

Mad? Hardly. I enjoy clowning fools.

Good enough. Stay whiny and ignorant. Doesn't matter to me!