Freedom of speech vs Technology

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-21-mn-8908-story.html?_amp=true






Reagan’s Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill

BY PENNY PAGANO
JUNE 21, 1987 12 AM PT




WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation’s broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old “fairness doctrine,” the White House announced Saturday.
The doctrine, instituted by the Federal Communications Commission as public policy in 1949, requires the nation’s radio and television stations to “afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance.”

“This type of content-based regulation by the federal government is, in my judgment, antagonistic to the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Reagan said in his veto message. “In any other medium besides broadcasting, such federal policing of the editorial judgment of journalists would be unthinkable.”



Staunch Opposition

The legislation had been staunchly opposed not only by the Administration, but also by the nation’s broadcasters, who maintain that the FCC policy is an unconstitutional intrusion that has a chilling effect on their operations.

Opponents also contend that the explosive growth of the telecommunications industry in recent years makes the fairness doctrine obsolete. In his veto message, Reagan noted that the FCC has concluded “that the doctrine is an unnecessary and detrimental regulatory mechanism.”

The legislation containing the doctrine passed the House on a 302-102 vote on June 3 and had been approved by the Senate in April on a 59-31 vote.
 
Without the fairness doctrine most of the media went further Left & some went more Republican.

A true disaster for the USA.

With it, we would never have seen how Leftist most of the MSM is and how biased they are in their reporting across the board. That would still be there but hidden far better.
 
A pile of right wing crap

Lies are not news
Lies destroy a democracy
Your side lies and cheats non stop
You deny COURT FINDINGS
you deny SCIENCE
you deny KNOWN HISTORY
You deny MATH
you lie
And yes real Americans will always fight lies
No matter how much that ruins your evil plans

Your spittle laden hysterics aside, prove anything I stated about the Fairness Doctrine is wrong. Question, does your computer screen come with a windshield wiper?
 
There was a time in the U.S. where the concept of freedom of speech meant something. At one time we had something called the freedom of the press. It was considered to be the Fourth Estate. Which went along with the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of government. And generally considered to be the equal of the other three in importance. But it would seem that our new technology has put a stake through the heart of that idea. Because of technology we now have places for people to communicate electronically. For instance, in forums like this. But because they label themselves as "private entities," freedom of speech has no place. There is one forum out there where I can see why. Because the truth to some extent is allowed to be spoken there, the place is practically a ghost town. Maybe if all the forums were the same, instead of a place for the self deluded to hide in and speak to each other, that would be different.

The Constitution is sacrosanct with regard to free speech. The MOB, of course, hates it as does the Democratic Party of Lying Jackasses and their PHONY media supporters.

This forum is one of the few that is the definition of free speech. ALL the others are over moderated by leftist hacks.
;)

Another blow against freedom of speech happen during the Reagan administration. There used to be a thing in the media called the fairness doctrine. Where two sides to any issue were given equal time. But Reagan killed that. I wonder how the incidents with george floyd or ahmaud arbery (for instance) would have been handled if the fairness doctrine was still in place. Is it time we were honest and took the image of George Washington off the dollar bill?

The Fairness Doctrine was BULLSHIT. There was nothing "fair" about it. You don't owe anyone equal time. The media owes nothing to anyone they don't want to give time to. Yes, it can appear to be unfair, but if they overdo it with one sided baloney like CNN and MSNBC, their ratings will eventually reflect it and few will give them the time of day.
 
An interesting hallucination. Apart from the one I mentioned, there is no forum out there that allows freedom of speech. At least not that I have found. Neither is it allowed on facebook or twitter. The only way you can have freedom of speech electronically is if you're talking to somebody on the telephone. And even then, the NSA monitors that. As for the "law," it is a joke too. Part of the reason is that jury's are a joke.

What media sources allowed more free speech than we have today? Language and sexual content were much more limited. I see all kinds of speech allowed on social media and message boards. I think you have been believing fake news by those claiming "Facebook removed my post...."
 
Freedom of speech applies to what you say from your own soapbox. The one that YOU own.

It is nowhere implied that you are free to say anything that you want on somebody else's platform with no oversight from him/her/them.
 
So? You can't curse out your boss and demand he not fire you.

Under our constitution free speech only restricts governmental actions and applies to discussion of political issues. Cursing out your boss is not a public issue and your speech cannot disrupt normal business activities.
 
Under our constitution free speech only restricts governmental actions and applies to discussion of political issues. Cursing out your boss is not a public issue and your speech cannot disrupt normal business activities.

And that was my point. We agree. There are always consequences for our actions. A lot of free speech libertarians cannot comprehend this.
 
And that was my point. We agree. There are always consequences for our actions. A lot of free speech libertarians cannot comprehend this.

I think free speech libertarians understand this principle just fine. Our Constitution allows me to advocate the violent overthrow of the government, carry a Nazi or KKK flag, or sex with children. Libertarians would agree while liberals and conservatives are more likely to want to restrict some types of political speech they find objectionable.

Consequences of free speech cannot be punishment by government.
 
18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government

In the 1957 case Yates v. United States, Justice John Marshall Harlan II ruled that only advocacy that constituted an "effort to instigate action" was punishable. In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a statute that punishes mere advocacy and forbids, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Louis Brandeis argued in Whitney v. California that "even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on."

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."


Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?



The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.


[h=2][/h]
 
Back
Top