Letters from House members to cable providers [pdf] • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by scythe » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

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…

>The letter complains about Fox and OANN's partisan and inflammatory rhetoric,

>they suggest censoring Fox News, which accurately reported the election results and Supreme Court developments. The conspiracy theories, such as they were, came from some of the opinion hosts.

It's hard to believe we're at this point, but Fox is on a different level from OANN. You can find counterpoints on Fox News. OANN/Breitbart/the Mercer family media empire are a new, more vicious and fantasy-driven right-populism.

If the right would keep its own house in order, you'd see less appetite for restrictions on the left. You need a boogeyman to sell this kind of thing. I can see your WaPo editor (in the private sector) and raise you plenty of Republican Congressmembers posing with rifles and Lindsey Graham trying to employ Brad Raffensperger. The worst left-wing "counterpart" is probably Maxine Waters's mean words.

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

#202

Post by jolux » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:41 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #190

jolux wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Not a demand for censorship? No, those look like questions to me. A demand for censorship would be "stop carrying these channels." Such a demand may follow after these questions are answered, but do they not constitute a demand for censorship of themselves.

and when the mafia boss says, “You have a beautiful family” he is only complimenting you.

That's not an argument.

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

#203

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

bhupy wrote: post #79

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Times vs Sullivan precedent does, in terms of defamation. That may not apply in other situations, specifically in federal crimes. The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them. They may not in this case, but I wouldn't assume they would either. They also differentiate based on other facts, which may differentiate any future…

> The Constitution may not differentiate between individuals and other entities, but the courts have differentiated between them. When? To my knowledge, there are no major landmark decisions which hold that an association of individuals may be treated differently from individuals; especially as it relates to the First Amendment. We even have a precedent in Citizens United v FEC which reinforces the consistency betwee…

There's nothing I know of that applies to the First Amendment, but there are many examples where individuals and organizations, or even organizations in different levels of government, are held to different standards under the law. The standards for HOAs versus local government is a good example. Some states require that HOAs enforce code equally, but will permit local government to enforce it unequally because local government has relatively limited resources.

The court may consider a media corporation to be identical to an individual in terms of First Amendment cases, but I wouldn't be certain about that.

The established cases do include criminal acts, but those were challenged based on the unconstitutionality of state law, and were in different crcumstances. If DT were charged with inciting a riot by the District of Columbia, then Hess is great precedent, but I don't think it would be great in a government case against a media corporation. The government likely wouldn't bring criminal charges against a specific individual either, which changes things. If they seek monetary damages and an injunction, or even just an injunction, the precedent used in Hess may not apply.

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

#204

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

citilife wrote: post #85

This is such a dangerous game to play. CNN knowingly misleads the public every single day. It's effectively public knowledge if anyone cares to investigate themselves. Going after FOX because the ruling party disagrees with them, but leaving CNN alone is the definition of authoritarian, regardless of your views. You can't single out voices. Further, who owns CNN? (Turner Broadcasting System) Who owns Turner Broadcast…

Trump continually attacked the media, Trump literally said the media was the enemy of the people. He would ignore questions from other agencies, even those without bias.

Until people in their own parties start standing up for principled government it will never change.

Unsurprisingly, downvoted for stating facts once again - people are afraid to call a spade a spade.

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

#205

Post by bhupy » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #160

bhupy wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The New York Times vs Sullivan precedent pretty specifically addressed that issue: organizations (like the NYT) are protected by the First Amendment. Also, just taking a step back, the Constitution makes no mention of a difference between individuals and groups. If you and I were to group together to advocate for something, our rights to advocate for that thing don't magically disappear. In fact, by this logic, we do…

The New York Times is a corporation with a government-granted charter that grants it things like limited liability. It's fallacious to characterize it as just some ad-hoc "group" of individuals joining together to individually exercise their rights. And yes, I agree that we don't actually have a free press. Given our microkernel government, institutions like the New York Times are better seen as part of the de facto…

> It's fallacious to characterize it as just some ad-hoc "group" of individuals joining together to individually exercise their rights.

Nobody is arguing that the New York Times is some ad-hoc group of individuals; it certainly has its structure. The argument is that the same principles that afford an ad-hoc group of individuals the freedom of association (and expression) is what also affords a structured corporation like the New York Times the same protections. This isn't conjecture, it's the philosophy behind the landmark decisions of New York Times Co vs Sullivan, as well as Citizens United vs FEC (Citizens United was a 501(c)4 non-profit corporation).

At the end of the day, the New York Times doesn't have a mind of its own; the articles it publishes and advertisements it chooses to sell are the output of the individuals that work there, including the journalists and the editors.

If you and I want to join together and start a corporation for the purpose of advancing an issue, the First Amendment prohibits the government from enacting any law that may abridge that.

> And yes, I agree that we don't actually have a free press.

The Supreme Court has an established track record of aggressively protecting the rights of the organized press (NYT v Sullivan, Hustler Magazine v Falwell), group-speech (Citizens United), hate speech (Brandenburg) and even violent speech (Hess v Indiana). If that doesn't register as "press freedom", then I may as well lobby for legislation outlawing comments like yours on account of being misinformation.

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

#206

Post by LanceH » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:43 PM UTC

ineptech wrote: post #136

surge wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It pretty much is and is a chilling attempt at limiting speech. Free press, is free press. CNN and MSNBC both spread their share of misinformation. You need to be able to watch multiple news sources with different takes in a free society, to determine whose wrong or whose omitting key facts in an attempt to frame the news.

How is asking Fox for viewership numbers, "a chilling attempt at limiting speech"?

It's a legislative body which is trying to limit speech not through legislation but through intimidation. They could pass a law and have it struck down nearly immediately, or they could flog CEO's in public for their own amusement.

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

#207

Post by cozuya » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

citilife wrote: post #85

This is such a dangerous game to play. CNN knowingly misleads the public every single day. It's effectively public knowledge if anyone cares to investigate themselves. Going after FOX because the ruling party disagrees with them, but leaving CNN alone is the definition of authoritarian, regardless of your views. You can't single out voices. Further, who owns CNN? (Turner Broadcasting System) Who owns Turner Broadcast…

When did CNN viewers storm the capitol in attempt to overthrow the elected government, leading to the deaths of 7 people?

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

#208

Post by ntsplnkv2 » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:44 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #191

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?

> When did democrafts, the party I vote for Probably around the same time as it became socially unacceptable not to vote for them? Note how you had to qualify yourself as a democrat voter as some kind of proof point of the validity of your claims?

~75 million people voted for Donald Trump - it is hardly socially unacceptable to vote for a republican and you have a secret vote anyway.

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

#209

Post by PTOB » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

njharman wrote: post #35

Judging what is and is not misinformation must always be in the hands of the people. Never the hands of authorities whether those be government or corporate. Why must fight all censorship. Because once you allow "a thing" to be censored, it becomes possible to censor "any thing". Things in the past which were labeled misinformation and would have been suppressed for even longer (or forever) under current social attit…

"Leaded gasoline poisoning all of the [world]." FTFY

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

#210

Post by mnouquet » Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #103

TrispusAttucks wrote: post #76

To determine misinformation you must first determine information. We would need to setup some government entity to determine true information. We could call it the "Ministry of Truth". Unless that name is already taken? ... the cold wind blows...

If only somehow the government could determine what is true... When somebody is accused of a crime we just have to say "Guilty according to whom?" and let them go, because there's no way to know what's true. Sure the DNA says he murdered 3 children, but what are those scientists really after! If only there were some organized system for appointed people with great track records to somehow listen to both sides of an a…

> If only somehow the government could determine what is true...

You got the definition backward, Truth is what the Government says it is, not the opposite, cf. historical truth set by law in France and other European countries. Records can always be altered to fit the current narrative.