Does Freedom of the Press extend to knowingly lying?

[Funtatlaguy]

Most people that read this site know all to well the genesis of most of America’s current problems.
Right wing radio got away with it.
Then, right wing tv and web sites and social media, etc.etc.
Got away with what?
Purposeful lies, misinformation, and propaganda.

Many of us screamed and yelled and stomped our feet when it started.
We begged others to listen.
As bit by bit, we saw our family members and friends fall for it.
Mostly it was older white men.
But it spread to other demographics.
Now, a good 40% of our country gets their “news” almost exclusively from these sources.

I don’t know how our democracy survives without changes.
All forms of media must be regulated and regulated by the SAME source.
That source must find a way to determine what IS considered as deliberately lying by a media source. (is that even possible? Smarter minds than mine need to tackle this).
Once that line is established, strong penalties must be enforced.

If the above can not happen, we must return to having all news content that is of the Opinion/Ediitorial nature, be labeled as such.

This is probably my wishful thinking of trying to “put the genie back into the bottle”.
I do know that some countries now try to regulate or even drop some offending outlets from their cable and satellite distribution.
Would America dare take that drastic step?

Before we rule everything out and just give our country over to the corporate propagandists, I’d at least, love to see a public/private commission developed to study media manipulation before we completely give up.

Thoughts, my dear friends of facts and truth over alternative facts and lies?

[DanieRains]

1. Err Yes

Kinda sucks, but the truth is relative.

Just ask Hannity, Tucker, or Rush's ghost.

[Funtatlaguy]

3. Then we are doomed. Democracy can not survive an alternative reality.

[TexasLefty29]

2. I thought that's what the FCC was for.

Where are they on this?

“ I don’t know how our democracy survives without changes.
All forms of media must be regulated and regulated by the SAME source.
That source must find a way to determine what IS considered as deliberately lying by a media source. (is that even possible? Smarter minds than mine need to tackle this).
Once that line is established, strong penalties must be enforced. ”

[Funtatlaguy]

4. FCC only relates to broadcast. FTC, supposedly, regulates cable.

In actuality, news in any format is unregulated.

[TexasLefty29]

5. And then

I guess that’s where it loops back around to being the gray area issues of the OP of freedom of speech - Guess that makes sense - well, then that means what I thought about how TV worked was wrong... so I agree , we would benefit from this single horses mouth, a unison message.

[alwaysinasnit]

6. Re-instating the Fairness Doctrine would be a good first step.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. However, the Court did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

The fairness doctrine is not the same as the equal-time rule. The fairness doctrine deals with discussion of controversial issues, while the equal-time rule deals only with political candidates.

snip...

[scarletwoman]

8. It still wouldn't apply to cable, only over-the-air broadcasting. Sorry.

That's because the U.S. government owns the airwaves, so the government can regulate its use. Not so with cable/satellite, etc.

[alwaysinasnit]

12. Very true, but since we have to start somewhere, I only offered the suggestion as a possible first

step. Thanks scarletwoman.

[CaptainTruth]

15. It also wouldn't apply to internet/streaming, which is how a lot of folks get their news.

I fully understand the "broadcast-only" limitation, because a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum is owned by the govt & leased to broadcasters, & how it seems that a new fairness doctrine might be helpful, one that is based on content, not the means of distribution.

Of course I say that & I realize the 1st Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law..." which means any govt attempt to regulate content would likely violate the 1st.

[scarletwoman]

17. The Supreme Court already established a "right to lie" as part of protected free speech.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-supreme-court-also-just-upheld-the-right-to-lie-2012-6

The Supreme Court Also Upheld The Right To Lie Today
Jun 28, 2012

In case you missed it during the Obamacare madness, the Supreme Court also issued a super interesting First Amendment ruling today: It upheld the right to lie.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, which made it illegal for individuals to lie about military service medals they'd received.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy cited the bedrock decision protecting newspapers, New York Times v. Sullivan, in arguing that lies are protected speech.

"The Act seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. Permitting the Government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle."

[sop]

19. Breaking up media monopolies would be preferable.

The SC noted the only solution to the problems surrounding political speech is even more political speech. We need more voices to counter the lies and propaganda, not fewer. Antitrust laws must be enforced, these media giants must be broken up.

[alwaysinasnit]

20. You'll get no argument from me.

[moondust]

7. Lying is not okay in advertising.

When the Federal Trade Commission finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims.When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet. The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding the marketing of alcohol and tobacco. During the recent coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the FTC has been sending warning letters to companies that may be violating the FTC Act, to warn them that their conduct is likely unlawful and that they can face serious legal consequences, such as a federal lawsuit, if they do not immediately stop.
~
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

I'm not sure why something like this couldn't be adapted to cover news and commentary targeting the general public ( "consumers" ).

[Funtatlaguy]

10. And it could be argued that news manipulation is worse than advertising.

[moondust]

13. Yes it could.

Exhibit A: January 6 deadly insurrection incited by the Big Lie.

[sop]

14. The Supreme Court has always viewed commercial speech and political speech very differently,

finding political speech is entitled to the greatest First Amendment protection, as opposed to speech about goods and services which can be regulated by the FTC's Truth in Advertising law.

[The Magistrate]

9. Doubtless Enforcement Would Be Tricky, Sir

Clearly, in a marketplace of ideas, deliberate lies have no more place than does counterfeit currency in a marketplace of goods and services.

A good deal could be accomplished by journalists willing to call lies lies, rather than simply quote without comment, or even characterize telling a lie as the liar's having mis-spoke.


"If one person says it's raining, and another says it isn't, a journalist's job is not to report opinions differ, it's to step outside and see if he gets wet."

[Funtatlaguy]

11. It took someone as outrageous as Trump for some journalists to finally call a lie a lie.

[CaptainTruth]

16. Well stated.

[Whiskeytide]

18. Part of the argument behind the idea that the "pseudo-press" should not ...

... be regulated (besides obvious 1st amendment issues) is that people in a democracy will not accept bullshit from a media source. Things that are obviously bullshit will be called out as bullshit, and the free marketplace of ideas will kill it.

The problem with this is that it requires the people in a democracy to not be stupid.

[Funtatlaguy]

21. Bingo, I'm afraid.