Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 86 posts

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#11

Post by loeg »

freeone3000 wrote: post #7
totalZero wrote: post #3

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.

Generally, free speech is NOT absolute,. Reasonable restrictions on "time, place, and manner" are generally upheld by the Supreme Court. They are not fined because they aired an ad for the Cancer Center, they are fined because they aired an ad for the Cancer Center that pretended to be a news segment. This is a manner restriction, and generally fine. The specific statutes allowing the FCC to govern broadcasters and f…

Very, very few restrictions are actually upheld. See in particular "Trope 3: 'Not all speech is protected.'"[0]

[0]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#12

Post by mythrwy »

mhneu wrote: post #5

I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pr…

While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard.

Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this:

House: Democrats: 63% yea.

House: Republicans: 80% yea.

Senate: Democrats: 69% yea.

Senate: Republicans: 82% yea.

In short, a much larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill than Democrats. Educated Americans can look this up.

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#13

Post by [deleted] »

totalZero wrote: post #3

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.

[deleted]

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#14

Post by adzm »

mythrwy wrote: post #12
mhneu wrote: post #5

I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pr…

While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard. Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this: House: Democrats: 63% yea. House: Republicans: 80% yea. Senate: Democrats: 69% yea. Senate: Republicans: 82% yea. In…

I believe the post is not referring to a sudden exchange of political identities, but rather to the Southern Strategy. This definitely had its roots in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but was a long, deliberate process by the Republican Party to exploit racial divisions for political gain. The RNC chairman formally apologized to the NAACP for this specifically in 2005.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#15

Post by bobwaycott »

mythrwy wrote: post #12
mhneu wrote: post #5

I think people know, but Sinclair is the emerging threat to American public debate that is controlled by conservative owners. Sinclair requires their local affilate TV stations to run conservative-biased segments. In one case last year Sinclair lied about Hillary and the Democrats -- they required their local affiliates to run this segment -- saying viewers "should not vote for Hillary because Ds were historically pr…

While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard. Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this: House: Democrats: 63% yea. House: Republicans: 80% yea. Senate: Democrats: 69% yea. Senate: Republicans: 82% yea. In…

My guess is the parent is referring specifically to the Republican Southern Strategy—whether the top-down or bottom-up variant is mostly immaterial—that notably did not display too much public opposition to racial integration on the national stage, but instead supported de facto racial segregation while appealing to entrenched racism and conservatism in the South as the Democratic Party realigned its platform and positions.

The somewhat snide-sounding remark was rather unnecessary. I’m sure the same educated Americans who can look this stuff up also find it improbable to believe 80 years of Jim Crow suddenly vanished with the signing of the Civil Rights Act. (Edit: appears the parent edited out the remark about educated Americans looking this up)

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#17

Post by mythrwy »

bobwaycott wrote: post #15
mythrwy wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I don't disagree there are currently some racists/supremacists who are also registered Republicans, unless Republicans suddenly were a pro-slavery party in the 1960's, "flipped positions" isn't really accurate in that regard. Also the 1964 Civil Rights bill was voted along party lines like this: House: Democrats: 63% yea. House: Republicans: 80% yea. Senate: Democrats: 69% yea. Senate: Republicans: 82% yea. In…

My guess is the parent is referring specifically to the Republican Southern Strategy—whether the top-down or bottom-up variant is mostly immaterial—that notably did not display too much public opposition to racial integration on the national stage, but instead supported de facto racial segregation while appealing to entrenched racism and conservatism in the South as the Democratic Party realigned its platform and pos…

You can infer (or retrofit), but then there is the smug, pro-political non-factual content of the post.

I don't consider echoing smugness necessarily snide. Don't insinuate to me all that all educated Americans share your political views and then proceed to back it up with half (or non) facts.

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#18

Post by tacomonstrous »

mythrwy wrote: post #17
bobwaycott wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is the parent is referring specifically to the Republican Southern Strategy—whether the top-down or bottom-up variant is mostly immaterial—that notably did not display too much public opposition to racial integration on the national stage, but instead supported de facto racial segregation while appealing to entrenched racism and conservatism in the South as the Democratic Party realigned its platform and pos…

You can infer (or retrofit), but then there is the smug, pro-political non-factual content of the post. I don't consider echoing smugness necessarily snide. Don't insinuate to me all that all educated Americans share your political views and then proceed to back it up with half (or non) facts.

Are you seriously arguing that bringing up the Democratic party's pro-slavery attitude during the Civil War has some relevance to current day political dynamics?

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#19

Post by mythrwy »

tacomonstrous wrote: post #18
mythrwy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can infer (or retrofit), but then there is the smug, pro-political non-factual content of the post. I don't consider echoing smugness necessarily snide. Don't insinuate to me all that all educated Americans share your political views and then proceed to back it up with half (or non) facts.

Are you seriously arguing that bringing up the Democratic party's pro-slavery attitude during the Civil War has some relevance to current day political dynamics?

No, not at all.

But I have to know, why in the world would you bother posting such a blatant straw-man on a site frequented by smart people? Cmmon man, you are better than that.

I just don't approve of smug ideological loyalty when it leads to promulgating mythology as fact. That's all.

Re: FCC Fines Sinclair Broadcast Group $13.4M for Running Sponsored Content as News

#20

Post by tw04 »

loeg wrote: post #10
mhneu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Supreme Court has noted that the FCC has an expansive mandate to ensure broadcasters operate in the public interest." (National Broadcasting Co. v. U.S., 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943).) It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.

The "shouting fire in a theater" example is a poor comparison, because it likely is allowed under the first amendment[0][1]. It may not be in the public interest, but as far as I know, the FCC does not regulate theaters. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... [1]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...

That's ridiculous. Shouting fire in a theater would be covered under 18 U.S. Code 2102 - inciting a riot (assuming anyone took you seriously). There's absolutely no way that's protected under free speech, and there are countless examples of previous trials to back it up.

People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not referencing the case in question, and common sense would tell you that shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.

Post reply on HN