(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 09:36 AM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 08:59 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The lisenses for the use of public air ways are periodically reviewed---nothing new there. At what point is ok to challenge thier liscense?

Violation of the terms of the license. Period.

Quote:Nobody is saying there shouldn't be free speech---

Here's the part where I expect you to say there shouldn't be free speech.

Quote:...It does the public no good to have a public airways "news" filled with lies, slanted stories, half truths, designed to push a specific party agenda. I'm fine with all the editorial and opinion programming they want---just don't give us biased unsourced half truths filled with editorial opinion and call it "news"---because it's not news---its opinion--and if you no longer know the difference, then I have no issue with another company getting your liscense.

Yup. And this is the part that is truly frightening. Since when is opinion something that should be licensed? There are plenty of methods to remedy speech you don't like. Use them! You give this guy the power to revoke NBC's license, the next guy's gonna revoke Fox's, right?

Quote:The way I see it---it's not an infringement of free speech at all. For example, NBC could still exercise thier right to present opinion as "news" all day on cable....just not on the PUBLIC airwaves.

It's not even a close call; it's ABSOLUTELY an infringement. It's got nothing to do with public vs private, the 1st Amendment prohibits laws that abridge free speech. Your example would require a law that restricts the presenting of opinions. I find that repulsive.

Quote:We did not allow porn on the public airways either and we don't seem to have anyone suggesting we have infringed on the rights of free speech.

IANAL, but I believe the courts have ruled on this pretty narrowly. Porn over the airwaves is a "public good" issue and it's very difficult to imagine someone saying mean opinions, even if wrong, are not in the public good.

Seriously, the argument you're making sounds very similar to the one being made on a lot of college campuses. Why are people having so much trouble with words they don't like?

I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

Now wait a sec...

The left wants to disregard the 2nd. So what's wrong with disregarding the 1st? Or any of them, for that matter?

The heck with the rule of law and original intent. Living document all the way!

I'm left and in no way want to disregard the 2nd amendment. I'm merely for reasonable regulations as agreed to by congress.

(10-16-2017 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm left and in no way want to disregard the 2nd amendment. I'm merely for reasonable regulations as agreed to by congress.

cant reply back to you, take me off your ignore list.

(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

(10-16-2017 03:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

We havent had the "truth" test---but the "public good" or "public service" has long been a part of broadcast license renewal. The fairness doctrine was far more intrusive than any "truth" doctrine would be as it actually tended to silence any editorial opinion.

The problem with a "truth" doctrine is it wouldnt really solve the underlying problem. The problem is bias presented under the banner of being unbiased. Its not that hard to misrepresent any situation on the air using legit facts because the facts you DONT report can skew the story as much as the FACTS you do report. Its just like using statistics. Im actually not for a "truth doctirne" idea because it wouldnt solve the problem--but even if it were enforeced, it would not be a violation of free speech. It would simply mean that programs presented as "news" would have to be factual and could not include opinion. You'd still be free to present editorial comment as long as it was labeled as editorial comment.

I mean--despite the right to free speech---you cant fill a jar with ground strawberry roots and put a label on it that says its strawberry jam.

(10-16-2017 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

We havent had the "truth" test---but the "public good" or "public service" has long been a part of broadcast license renewal. The fairness doctrine was far more intrusive than any "truth" doctrine would be as it actually silence any editorial opinion.

The problem with a "truth" doctrine is it wouldnt really solve the underlying problem. The problem is bias presented under the banner of being unbiased. Its not that hard to misrepresent any situation on the air using legit facts because the facts you DONT report can skew the story as much as the FACTS you do report. Its just like using statistics. Im actually not for a "truth doctirne" idea because it wouldnt solve the problem--but t would not be a violation of free speech. It would simply mean that programs presented as "news" would have to be factual and could not include opinion. You'd still be free to present editorial comment as long as it was labeled as editorial comment.

I mean--despite the right to free speech---you cant fill a jar with ground strawberry roots and put a label on it that says its strawberry jam.

There is simply no way that restricting a broadcaster's ability to express an opinion will ever fly. Thankfully no one has proposed it, and our Orange Leader doesn't really mean stuff he says.

As to the bolded, sure you can. And after you've done it the government can fine you, Smuckers can sue you, but they have to positively demonstrate that your label in some way violated the law or caused damages to another, before they can take away your ability to label that jar the way you did. Otherwise it's prior restraint, right?

Do you really think making it illegal to express an opinion on TV news would NOT be prior restraint?

(10-16-2017 04:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

We havent had the "truth" test---but the "public good" or "public service" has long been a part of broadcast license renewal. The fairness doctrine was far more intrusive than any "truth" doctrine would be as it actually silence any editorial opinion.

The problem with a "truth" doctrine is it wouldnt really solve the underlying problem. The problem is bias presented under the banner of being unbiased. Its not that hard to misrepresent any situation on the air using legit facts because the facts you DONT report can skew the story as much as the FACTS you do report. Its just like using statistics. Im actually not for a "truth doctirne" idea because it wouldnt solve the problem--but t would not be a violation of free speech. It would simply mean that programs presented as "news" would have to be factual and could not include opinion. You'd still be free to present editorial comment as long as it was labeled as editorial comment.

I mean--despite the right to free speech---you cant fill a jar with ground strawberry roots and put a label on it that says its strawberry jam.

There is simply no way that restricting a broadcaster's ability to express an opinion will ever fly. Thankfully no one has proposed it, and our Orange Leader doesn't really mean stuff he says.

As to the bolded, sure you can. And after you've done it the government can fine you, Smuckers can sue you, but they have to positively demonstrate that your label in some way violated the law or caused damages to another, before they can take away your ability to label that jar the way you did. Otherwise it's prior restraint, right?

Do you really think making it illegal to express an opinion on TV news would NOT be prior restraint?

Bad example. The government doesn't need to prove anything. They just issue a letter requiring you to pull all that product off the market. You would have to sue to keep it there.

(10-16-2017 04:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

We havent had the "truth" test---but the "public good" or "public service" has long been a part of broadcast license renewal. The fairness doctrine was far more intrusive than any "truth" doctrine would be as it actually silence any editorial opinion.

The problem with a "truth" doctrine is it wouldnt really solve the underlying problem. The problem is bias presented under the banner of being unbiased. Its not that hard to misrepresent any situation on the air using legit facts because the facts you DONT report can skew the story as much as the FACTS you do report. Its just like using statistics. Im actually not for a "truth doctirne" idea because it wouldnt solve the problem--but t would not be a violation of free speech. It would simply mean that programs presented as "news" would have to be factual and could not include opinion. You'd still be free to present editorial comment as long as it was labeled as editorial comment.

I mean--despite the right to free speech---you cant fill a jar with ground strawberry roots and put a label on it that says its strawberry jam.

There is simply no way that restricting a broadcaster's ability to express an opinion will ever fly. Thankfully no one has proposed it, and our Orange Leader doesn't really mean stuff he says.

As to the bolded, sure you can. And after you've done it the government can fine you, Smuckers can sue you, but they have to positively demonstrate that your label in some way violated the law or caused damages to another, before they can take away your ability to label that jar the way you did. Otherwise it's prior restraint, right?

Do you really think making it illegal to express an opinion on TV news would NOT be prior restraint?

I dont know how to explain it any clearer. You're not restraining. Your simply requiring that opinion be labeled as opinion. You're free to say what ever you like. If the network wishes to not comply--they would be free to do that as well and the government would make no effort to stop them---but they would lose the use of the airwaves and would become strictly a cable network. But that's their choice. The government is not going to march into thier studios to stop them nor will they even fine them. They just lose the use of the airwaves----and another network will be happy to comply with the rules and take their place.

I guess we just disagree on this one.

(10-16-2017 04:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 02:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I dont think you understand the right to free speech. Dont feel bad---most people dont seem to have a clue what it really is.

Its quite simple. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech.

Thats it. Thats all it is. Congress will make no law preventing you from saying your piece.

It doesnt say not one word about sponsoring free speech or making it easier to reach millions of people. The Right to Free Speech doesnt even give you the right to be heard. Nobody HAS to listen to you....including the government. You are also not protected from the consequences of you remarks from the rest of society. If you are fired by a private business because of your "speech" thats just tough (which is strange, because it happens all the time in government ---which is actually the one place you should be protected from firing).

Bottom line---No network has a "right" to those public airways. They are a privilege that can be granted or revoked. They are supposed to be for the public good and the FCC makes that determination.

I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

We havent had the "truth" test---but the "public good" or "public service" has long been a part of broadcast license renewal. The fairness doctrine was far more intrusive than any "truth" doctrine would be as it actually silence any editorial opinion.

The problem with a "truth" doctrine is it wouldnt really solve the underlying problem. The problem is bias presented under the banner of being unbiased. Its not that hard to misrepresent any situation on the air using legit facts because the facts you DONT report can skew the story as much as the FACTS you do report. Its just like using statistics. Im actually not for a "truth doctirne" idea because it wouldnt solve the problem--but t would not be a violation of free speech. It would simply mean that programs presented as "news" would have to be factual and could not include opinion. You'd still be free to present editorial comment as long as it was labeled as editorial comment.

I mean--despite the right to free speech---you cant fill a jar with ground strawberry roots and put a label on it that says its strawberry jam.

There is simply no way that restricting a broadcaster's ability to express an opinion will ever fly. Thankfully no one has proposed it, and our Orange Leader doesn't really mean stuff he says.

As to the bolded, sure you can. And after you've done it the government can fine you, Smuckers can sue you, but they have to positively demonstrate that your label in some way violated the law or caused damages to another, before they can take away your ability to label that jar the way you did. Otherwise it's prior restraint, right?

Do you really think making it illegal to express an opinion on TV news would NOT be prior restraint?

I dont know how to explain it any clearer. You're not restraining. Your simply requiring that opinion be labeled as opinion. You're free to say what ever you like. If the network wishes to not comply--they would be free to do that as well and the government would make no effort to stop them---but they would lose the use of the airwaves and would become strictly a cable network. But that's their choice. The government is not going to march into thier studios to stop them nor will they even fine them. They just lose the use of the airwaves----and another network will be happy to comply with the rules and take their place.

I guess we just disagree on this one.

I agree in principle, but in practicality, I don't want the government to judge what is "fact" and what is "editorial."

(10-16-2017 08:04 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:38 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:25 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  I understand the 1st Amendment just fine, thanks.

That broadcast licenses aren't a right is obvious, but also not the point. Your argument assumes the federal government could have a truth test or an opinion test or something similar that would qualify a prospective broadcaster for receipt of a license. That hasn't happened, and I don't believe it can happen. We'd have to get the lawyers to chime in but beyond vulgar words and (previously) the Fairness Doctrine, I don't think there's been much if any traction in expanding the use of "public good" to include the kinds of tests your idea would require.

It's remarkable to me that you're making this argument. No way, no how does anything like this ever see the light of day.

We havent had the "truth" test---but the "public good" or "public service" has long been a part of broadcast license renewal. The fairness doctrine was far more intrusive than any "truth" doctrine would be as it actually silence any editorial opinion.

The problem with a "truth" doctrine is it wouldnt really solve the underlying problem. The problem is bias presented under the banner of being unbiased. Its not that hard to misrepresent any situation on the air using legit facts because the facts you DONT report can skew the story as much as the FACTS you do report. Its just like using statistics. Im actually not for a "truth doctirne" idea because it wouldnt solve the problem--but t would not be a violation of free speech. It would simply mean that programs presented as "news" would have to be factual and could not include opinion. You'd still be free to present editorial comment as long as it was labeled as editorial comment.

I mean--despite the right to free speech---you cant fill a jar with ground strawberry roots and put a label on it that says its strawberry jam.

There is simply no way that restricting a broadcaster's ability to express an opinion will ever fly. Thankfully no one has proposed it, and our Orange Leader doesn't really mean stuff he says.

As to the bolded, sure you can. And after you've done it the government can fine you, Smuckers can sue you, but they have to positively demonstrate that your label in some way violated the law or caused damages to another, before they can take away your ability to label that jar the way you did. Otherwise it's prior restraint, right?

Do you really think making it illegal to express an opinion on TV news would NOT be prior restraint?

I dont know how to explain it any clearer. You're not restraining. Your simply requiring that opinion be labeled as opinion. You're free to say what ever you like. If the network wishes to not comply--they would be free to do that as well and the government would make no effort to stop them---but they would lose the use of the airwaves and would become strictly a cable network. But that's their choice. The government is not going to march into thier studios to stop them nor will they even fine them. They just lose the use of the airwaves----and another network will be happy to comply with the rules and take their place.

I guess we just disagree on this one.

I agree in principle, but in practicality, I don't want the government to judge what is "fact" and what is "editorial."

There are some things that would be obvious. But alot of stuff would fall into a grey area. Truth is I agree that its a bad idea simply becaue it wouldnt work. By carefully choosing what facts you DO report and what facts you choose NOT to report---you can paint the picture you want---using nothing but objective facts (much like a defense lawyer only uses evidence he wants the jury to see).

The real problem is bias and I have no idea how you fix that. You'd probably be better off offering spectrum space to two Democrat stations and two Republican stations and just let them slant the news however they want. At least that way you know what your getting and the people who are interested in getting all the facts can get easy access to both sides of any debate.

(10-16-2017 03:22 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm left and in no way want to disregard the 2nd amendment. I'm merely for reasonable regulations as agreed to by congress.

cant reply back to you, take me off your ignore list.

Oh...sorry...forgot about that weird PM rule. Will do.