So the FCC chair is threatening networks that broadcast unfavorable news

[struth]

And you want them to decide what the truth is.

Who do they work for?

No, I never said that.

I simply want them to enforce the law and not allow broadcast networks to distort the news

The FCC works for the President

 

[struth]

No. If Trump tries it, he will immediately lose the inevitable suit.

No, really the FCC exist, it has since 1934

 

[Marener]

No, I never said that.

I simply want them to enforce the law and not allow broadcast networks to distort the news

The FCC works for the President

How do you determine what is distortion if you don’t know what the truth is?

 

[Papageorgio]

Removal would be punishment, you don't have a right to a broadcast licence, and if you distort the news you violate the law, and thus get punished.

So you of course are wrong.

The government has no right to interfere with free speech.As long as the company that has the license follows the basic guidelines, fraud with regulators, technical violations, criminal misconduct by owners, failure to operate the station, they should be able to keep and renew their FCC license. Political speech and commentary against a President is protected under the 1st amendment.

 

[Rawley]

No. If Trump tries it, he will immediately lose the inevitable suit.

Not if they can prove the distortion.

News distortion "must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report." In weighing the constitutionality of the policy, courts have recognized that the policy "makes a crucial distinction between deliberate distortion and mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion." As a result, broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable.

 

[Marener]

Not if they can prove the distortion.

The threat of being subjected to this process alone is enough to affect behavior.

 

[Zincwarrior]

No, really the FCC exist, it has since 1934

FCC doesn't determine free speech rights, just fair access.

 

[struth]

How do you determine what is distortion if you don’t know what the truth is?

Who said I don't know what the truth is?

Broadcast News Distortion

Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

www.fcc.gov

The FCC will only investigate claims that include evidence showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners. Evidence may include testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news (for example, written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery). Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene. The FCC does not investigate claims of collateral inaccuracy in news reports or differences of opinion over the truth or validity of aspects of a news program.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Not if they can prove the distortion.

Thats not what the First Amendment says.

 

[struth]

FCC doesn't determine free speech rights, just fair access.

I didn't say they did. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.

People are free to distort the news all the they want, they however aren't free to have a broadcast license.

 

[Rawley]

The threat of being subjected to this process alone is enough to affect behavior.

This is a good thing.

 

[Marener]

Who said I don't know what the truth is?

Broadcast News Distortion

Broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. The FCC states that "rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest."

www.fcc.gov

The FCC will only investigate claims that include evidence showing that the broadcast news report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers or listeners. Evidence may include testimony from persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news (for example, written or oral instructions from station management, outtakes, or evidence of bribery). Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene. The FCC does not investigate claims of collateral inaccuracy in news reports or differences of opinion over the truth or validity of aspects of a news program.

So Trump determines what the truth is.

It’s not a ministry of truth, it’s just dictates from a central authority.

 

[struth]

The threat of being subjected to this process alone is enough to affect behavior.

It should be, yes, laws often have that effect on law abiding folks

 

[Marener]

This is a good thing.

It’s only good if you don’t like the first amendment.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I didn't say they did. The first amendment has nothing to do with this.

Yes, it does. A Fed law cannot trump the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

It should be, yes, laws often have that effect on law abiding folks

Using the threat of government persecution to change constitutionally protected and legal behaviors is corrupt.

 

[struth]

So Trump determines what the truth is.

It’s not a ministry of truth, it’s just dictates from a central authority.

Well, yes, the President is elected to enforce the law the power of the executive vest in a President.


It's like speaking to a 8th grader....did you miss civics?

 

[struth]

Using the threat of government persecution to change constitutionally protected and legal behaviors is corrupt.

There is no constitutional right to broadcast license. Stop lying.

 

[struth]

Yes, it does. A Fed law cannot trump the Constitution.

where in the Constitution does it say people have a right to a broadcast license?

 

[struth]

It’s only good if you don’t like the first amendment.

where in the first amendment does it say anyone has a right to a broadcast license?