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

Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

eshoo.house.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 602 posts

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#41

Post by noodles_nomore »

qntty wrote: post #15

Is anyone else confused at how this is legal? I have no expertise in law, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama that. > Racial discrimination in state-operated schools is barred by the Constitution and "[i]t is also axiomatic that a state may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally fo…

Yes, Greenwald pointed out the same thing in a recent article:

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure...

Edit: Another article just went up about exactly this.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/house-democrats-targeting-r...

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#42

Post by sleepysysadmin »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #24
runlevel1 wrote: post #5

There is no such demand in the PDF linked. EDIT: In case the title gets changed, it is currently "House Democrats Demand Cable Providers to Censor Misinformation [PDF]" EDIT 2: After all the downvotes, I looked again but still am not seeing it.

This is correct. There is no per-se demand, but there is a strong suggestion of expectation that these networks should be exerting some kind of pressure against the misinformation in shows they carry. Frankly it still seems pretty ridiculous to me.

>This is correct. There is no per-se demand, but there is a strong suggestion of expectation that these networks should be exerting some kind of pressure against the misinformation in shows they carry.

It's kind of interesting. In 1 reading you can say there's no demand but when I read it there's multiple demands from the federal government.

It's similar to Trump and inciting violence. In 1 reading you can say Trump never incited violence but when I read Trumps' words he incited violence.

The democrat government absolutely demanded right-wing media be removed from their platform.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#43

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

bhupy wrote: post #33
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be. The key is whether the misinformation present directed others to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. CNN/MSNBC may also have misinformation, but their misinformation may not be in the same class, specifically something that could motivate some subset of their viewers to commit insurr…

> To me, it could also be the modern day version of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. That legal argument has been overturned precisely because it has no real limiting principle: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate.

In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#44

Post by throwaway8582 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #4

"How many of your subscribers tuned in to Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN on U-verse, DirecTV, and AT&T TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel ." Does this strike anyone else as a nakedly partisan move?

It's political censorship disguised at fact checking. If they were really concerned about "fake news", they would apply the same standards to the other side. Remember how just a couple years ago almost all of the major media outlets were pushing a conspiracy theory about "Russian Collusion"? Yet nobody is talking about shutting ABC, CBS, NBC, or MSNBC down, kicking them off cable, or banning them from the internet.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#46

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

zests wrote: post #40
omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be. The key is whether the misinformation present directed others to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. CNN/MSNBC may also have misinformation, but their misinformation may not be in the same class, specifically something that could motivate some subset of their viewers to commit insurr…

You can compare yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre to a lot of speech, for example, speech that is against a military draft. This was the original comparison. Luckily we (the United States) prevent our government from restricting this type of speech.

Like bhupy pointed out above, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?

If a speech against the draft incites some subset of those who were present to insurrection, with the intent to detain and possibly murder elected officials, then it may not be protected as free speech.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#47

Post by jolux »

rayiner wrote: post #37

The letter complains about Fox and OANN's partisan and inflammatory rhetoric, with supporting citations to sources on the left who trade heavily in partisan and inflammatory rhetoric. Just three citations in you get to Karen Attiah, Washington Post's Global Opinions Editor: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/29/karen-attia... > “White women are lucky that we are just calling them ‘Karen’s,’ and not calling…

>I don't really care what inflammatory things people post in their free time. But make no mistake that there will be double standards in how these rules will be applied.

This seems like a red herring though? These letters are talking about the statements that news sources make as official outlets, to which you're comparing statements an individual makes (presumably) on her own time. I don't deny that there's a potential for double standards here, but I think you would have to show that misinformation in the Washington Post is comparable to misinformation on OANN or Newsmax to show that one is being applied in this instance.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#48

Post by BitwiseFool »

tarboreus wrote: post #16

Is anyone finding this terrifying? When did democrafts, the party I vote for, become the people calling for tight censorship in every sector? Weren't the last people to make this move (more more ineffectively, thankfully) the Christian right? Is there something we can do to stand up for speech?

I've noticed that there is a common belief amongst Democrats and Progressives that people are duped into holding conservative viewpoints because of Fox News. Whenever I have asked people on the left why they think Republicans and Conservatives believe what they believe, the conversation always includes references to Fox News and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. So in that sense I can understand why so many Democrats want Fox News dismantled.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#49

Post by asterialite »

I think the crux of the issue is not freedom of speech, but rather determining what counts as harmful disinformation. I imagine we all agree that disinformation should be curbed; the point of contention is precisely where we should draw the line.

The violent, seditious sentiments present in America today are a direct result of people being permitted to pander dangerous lies with no consequences, lies which have caused deaths, and will cause more. If the GOP had not been able to lie about election fraud, the Capitol attack might not have happened.

At the same time, it's hard to draw the line between a mere falsehood and a dangerous one. In hindsight we can tell that a conspiracy theory claiming that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish pædophiles with space lasers is dangerous, but what about when it was new? In a democracy with a variety of views, it is hard for there to be government-sanctioned truths.

Without wanting to be too cynical, it's also worth pointing out that there's lots of precedent for the government stripping minorities of their rights in the name of national security. The only difference here is that the minority being targeted happens to be White.

Re: Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf]

#50

Post by rayiner »

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #43
bhupy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To me, it could also be the modern day version of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and I think it hinges on how people reacted to the misinformation. That legal argument has been overturned precisely because it has no real limiting principle: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...

While it's not the best, people are familiar with it. The replacement is certainly more accurate. In this case, is the misinformation present directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action?

"Incitement" and "imminent lawless action" are extremely narrow compared to what people are talking about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Even openly advocating violence is protected by the first amendment under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg decision.

Post reply on HN