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

Post by totalZero » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 5:40 AM UTC

mhneu wrote: post #4

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.

"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.

Post by totalZero » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 6:01 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #20

loeg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ref…

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 7:15 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #28

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans. That is an oversimplification. What happened is that overtly racist policies fell out of favor. People talk about structural racism today, but nobody can say with a straight face that it's the same now as…

Some racists (e.g. Strom Thurmond) switched parties, but in general the Republicans were never as racist as the Democrats historically were. They didn't have to be. Popular support for racism has been on the decline for more than a hundred years, and the remaining racists no longer trusted the Dems so the Republicans never had to give them anything or even really promise to give them anything to get their votes. This…

Post by sitkack » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 7:30 AM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #31

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.

Falsely shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre incites behavior that is knowingly contrary to the well-being of the patrons. (Also, some defenders of the first amendment argue that this is protected speech, but let's ignore that for now.) Imagine I pay a news station to run a story about a hospital (for example) which I believe to have saved many lives and I expect will continue to do so. Arguably my advertisement is…

Post by ajross » Fri, Dec 22, 2017, 8:45 AM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #25

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…

> But all educated Americans know that the parties flipped their positions in the 1960s when Dems under LBJ courageously pushed out the racists to pass the Civil Rights Act and the racists moved to the Republicans. That is an oversimplification. What happened is that overtly racist policies fell out of favor. People talk about structural racism today, but nobody can say with a straight face that it's the same now as…