Обсуждение

Предыдущая публикация

would never do...put a temporary block on Sky News after the mass shooting in Christchurch. Our government, here in the US, because we have the freedom of speech, literally lets him get away with outright lies! It took a non-governmental organization to take Fox News down a notch. We need

PinkTweets

28 июл., 19:00

Yes, the 1st amendment protects lies with the exceptions of defamation, perjury, and faud.

willfulchipmunk

28 июл., 19:08

Are you a lawyer? If so, please accept my apology for being such a dumb ass.

PinkTweets

28 июл., 19:15

Also, it is extremely difficult to find that link to the Fairness Doctrine (because that is not what it was called; Fairness Doctrine is a nickname). Which is why I take the time to post the link. So people can read the primary source instead of what other people say about it

willfulchipmunk

28 июл., 19:34

Thom Hartmann wrote a book about it in his Hidden History of American Oligarchy, Pg 23-26. It applies to how news and opinions are presented, and should be in the interest of the citizenry.

PinkTweets

28 июл., 19:48

I am sorry to say that I do not find Hartmann to be a good source. He is always just slightly off and doesn't seem to have in-depth knowledge. He also platforms an attorney from St Louis who claims to be a 1A expert but who makes such erroneous statements that it makes my head spin. And he never

PinkTweets

28 июл., 19:48

corrects her or questions her.

willfulchipmunk

28 июл., 21:04

Please tell me what Hartmann is slightly off about and what the St. Louis lawyer has said that is not true. She seems to confirm what I've already read on Huffpost, Raw Story, Daily Kos and The Guardian, and watched shows. She just fills in details. I think it's interesting to get other opinions.

PinkTweets

28 июл., 21:05

I'm sorry - I really do not have the time nor the patience to listen to her again.

willfulchipmunk

28 июл., 20:38

Then here is the Fairness Doctrine, from an AI search: It was a part of the Communications Act of 1934, built on the public interest standard, balanced views and the right to reply. The FCC released it in 1987, Obama removed it from the Federal Register and is no longer active.

PinkTweets

28 июл., 20:53

Please do not use/cite AI. It was NEVER part of the Communications Act of 1934. It was an FCC policy issued in 1949. It replaced an earlier policy known as the Mayflower Doctrine. Yes, it was based on the public interest standard which was a licensing requirement.

willfulchipmunk

28 июл., 20:54

Which source would be acceptable?

PinkTweets

28 июл., 21:02

Primary source (actual statute or regulation, for instance) is always best. Secondary sources from reputable scholarly journals or books/book chapters written by known experts. Don't they teach this in your history program? It was taught in my first history course - a methods course.

Elizabeth Grattan

28 июл., 20:40

You are very confused

Dan

28 июл., 20:48

And even if the Fairness Doctrine had been in place, it could have done absolutely nothing to prevent the existence of Fox News, or affect its programming in any way.

PinkTweets

28 июл., 19:13

I was (I escaped) and you are in no way a dumbass nor do you have anything to apologize for. About 99% of the people who post about the Fairness Doctrine have no idea what it did or why its impact was so limited. And, unfortunately, most of the information you will see online reinforces the

PinkTweets

28 июл., 19:13

misperceptions. And as for fire-theater, again - 99% get it wrong. I certainly don't expect non-lawyers to know this stuff. That's why I take the time to explain it.