Профиль

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.

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

What does "not actively" mean?

You think there are no content restrictions on kid's tv in the U.S.? That is simply false. As to where the content was created, that is true and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I was just pointing out that the Australianregulation of content is very limited.

Social media is full of bullshit. It is really important to fact-check pretty much everything you read before posting or sharing.

News24, known until 2026 as Sky News Australia, is an Australian news channel owned by News Corp Australia.

apnews.com/article/fact...

OK, let's do some fact-checking. apnews.com/article/fact...

Really? You want to give the government the power to declare something a lie and to punish someone for it? www.nbcnews.com/world/russia...

www.masshist.org/digitaladams...

janehamptoncook.substack.com/p/part-1-war...

www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

janecook.com/war-of-lies-...

It in no way "created a safe place." The 1st amendment (ratified 1791) protects lies, with the exceptions of defamation, perjury, and fraud. The safe place always existed. Misinformation and lies were not born after 1987. In fact, there was no shortage of misinformation in the Revolutionary War Era

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

And it was overturned in 1969 in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Since that time, the standard has been incitement to imminent lawless action. And again, the case had nothing to do with lying. www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492

present danger (Schenck v. US, 1919). www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1...

OK, let's do fire/theater. It was never the law or even the holding of the case in which that concept was discussed. It was dicta (nonbinding discussion). The case was not even about lies. It was about people distributing anti-war fliers And the standard that came from that case was "clear and

This article says that they were fined, but not blocked. www.dw.com/en/new-zeala...

Do you have a source saying that the government did that? This article says it was voluntary. www.theguardian.com/media/2019/m...