FOX News is lying, traitorous scum.

[kentuck]

As are all the others that intentionally spread propaganda that they know is untrue but serves no purpose but to divide our people and incite violence.

It is too bad they cannot have their license to broadcast suspended.

They are destroying this nation, along with the weak-minded, uneducated riff-raff that supported Donald Trump and that attacked our Capitol.

Evidently, no one at FOX has any shame?

[Ocelot II]

1. Also, bears shit in the woods.

[soldierant]

31. And I believe the Pope is Catholic.

[Funtatlaguy]

2. The Murdoch's, Mercers, and Koch's have destroyed America.

[Hoyt]

3. Sad thing is that if FOX stopped broadcasting tomorrow, we'd still have

more than our share of white wing rubes now and decades in the future.

I guess we should feel good that their license can’t be pulled.

[Maraya1969]

4. And they have not reported anything about the rape allegations by Tucker Carlson

by a woman who used to work for him. They conveniently ignore what they don't like

[MarineCombatEngineer]

5. What license?

Faux News and those others, like OANN, Newsmax, don't need licenses to operate on cable.

[kentuck]

6. There are no rules or regulations that apply to "cable" networks?

First Amendment rights, I guess?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

9. Pretty much so.

The FCC pretty much has no jurisdiction over cable, satellite or the internet.
The difference between over the air broadcasting, which the FCC absolutely has jurisdiction, is that it's free, whereas those other genres one has to pay for.

Hope that helps.

[Justice matters.]

29. I can watch cable on streaming websites for free through a VPN.

And I'm not the only one who does...

[DENVERPOPS]

33. good comment MCE

Although, even if they were a network station, I doubt anything would happen to them.

The FCC and many other groups have been successfully neutered, many by Trump and the Republican Politicians. For example, just look at what Zero power the FEC had in the last election, or so many others.

Regretfully, our beloved country is in super deep shit MCE.................And the Republican owned media, the Uber rich Republicans, and Republican politicians keep right on piling it on using front end loaders.

[summer_in_TX]

7. No shame, apparently.

They're making a LOT of money apparently.

Has it occurred to anyone else that our first amendment could stand to be tightened up?

No broadcasting deliberate lies would be a great start. Allowing those attacked time to defend themselves would be another.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. ....

Has it occurred to anyone else that our first amendment could stand to be tightened up?

No, it doesn't, the 1A is just fine as it is, once you start fucking around with the 1A, then the consequences could be devastating to our BoR.

I love it when someone wants to fuck with the 1A because they don't like what they hear.

[kentuck]

12. I wonder if Goebels would have agreed?

With the sanctity of our First Amendment?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. No he wouldn't,

Goebels was very anti free speech, he controlled what the German people heard and read, there was no right to free speech, being anti Nazi would earn one a trip to prison or worse.

[kentuck]

19. It has always puzzled me why so many German people went along with Goebel's propaganda.

Is the American mindset at a similar place compared to the German people in 1931?

Sometimes people exaggerate. And sometimes it is much worse than they ever thought it might be.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

23. Back then it was easy to control what the German people heard or read,

unlike today with all the sources available on the internet, cable and satellite.

I don't think we're anywhere close to what Nazi Germany was, I just refuse to believe it, especially after we just defeated the worse president in the history of this nation and I see the left finally fighting back and taking it to the RWNJ, this brings me hope.

[hadEnuf]

16. How about the deliberate lies part?

I fail to see where deliberate misinformation posing as truth from a major "news" network is protected by anything.

Try lying to a cop and see how far the 1st Amendment argument would get.

[TheAnnoyedAgnostic]

17. They are just a noise machine nt

[MarineCombatEngineer]

20. Try taking that argument to court and see how far you get.

The judge would laugh you out of court.

[hadEnuf]

41. Better to fight back in some way.

Fox News is laughing at you and the rest of us.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

42. "Fox News is laughing at you and the rest of us."

So what?
That's no excuse for trashing the 1A.
Boycott their advertisers, write letters to their advertisers, don't watch them, etc, but don't crap all over the 1 just because you don't like what they say, it would lead to bad consequences.

I may not like what one has to say, but I will defend their right to say it, however repugnant it is.

[hadEnuf]

44. You keep bringing up the 1A but where have I indicated trashing it? This has nothing to do

with liking or not liking an opinion. I'm talking about responsibility and accountability. Both of those go hand in hand with free speech. Fox News has exploited the free speech card for years and they are now practically openly lying on air to the point of insurrection. The 1A doesn't prevent people from lying but it sure isn't a get out of jail free card either.

Maybe instead of wringing our hands over the free speech of people who support the former POTUS who was having the DOJ investigate reporters who didn't agree with him, we should be trying to find a way to bring sanity, accountability and fairness to what people still believe is "the news".

[MarineCombatEngineer]

45. I agree with everything you say,

but the fact is that if a law were passed to address all your points, it would never pass muster in the courts because of the 1A.

Fox and other RWNJ networks have the right to lie, and we have the right to call them out and ridicule them for their lies.

[summer_in_TX]

22. There are plenty of abuses that are damaging things we all value...

Some things we don't have tools that allow us to address issues,

Revenge porn, social media harassment, disinformation, the spread of conspiracy theories rapidly due to social media algorithms.

The stoking of hatred on major media networks, fomenting civil war, spreading vaccine misinformation arguably leading to more COVID deaths.

Somehow I don't think we have the best of all possible handles on the situation. It's rapidly DESTROYING our country.

[Ferryboat]

25. Curious, what is BoR?

Not everyone is savvy in text shorthand.

[Marie Marie]

27. I think he was referring to the Bill of Rights.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

43. Sorry about that,

Bill of Rights.

[StrictlyRockers]

8. They are very well paid to spread disinformation.

We need new laws to prevent this. We need things like the old Fairness Doctrine in place.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

11. The FD would have made no difference whatsoever,

the FD applied only to over the air broadcast stations, Faux, OANN, Newsmax and all others operate on cable, which the FCC has no authority over and no license is required to operate on that venue.

[kentuck]

13. Could Congress pass a law to amend it?

If there were no filibuster?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

18. They could,

but it would have to survive court challenges, and, as you pointed out, there would have to be no filibuster.
I don't think anyone in Congress wants to touch this hot potato.

[kentuck]

21. Yes, there seems to be an aversion to hot potatoes at this time.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

35. The FCC still regulates cable, including "false information"...

... if it causes harm.

Harm is surely harder to prove, especially since the regulations mention: "public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."

Cable companies are even allowed to do that, IF they provide a "disclaimer" about the fiction of their broadcast.

Perhaps something like this SNL parody of "Fox and Friends" if Fox was concerned about immediate harm.

Broadcasting False Information
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/broadcasting-false-information

Broadcasting false information that causes substantial 'public harm'

The FCC prohibits broadcasting false information about a crime or a catastrophe if the broadcaster knows the information is false and will cause substantial "public harm" if aired.

FCC rules specifically say that the "public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."

Broadcasters may air disclaimers that clearly characterize programming as fiction to avoid violating FCC rules about public harm.

Broadcasting false content during news programming

The FCC is prohibited by law from engaging in censorship or infringing on First Amendment rights of the press. It is, however, illegal for broadcasters to intentionally distort the news, and the FCC may act on complaints if there is documented evidence of such behavior from persons with direct personal knowledge. For more information, please see our consumer guide, Complaints About Broadcast Journalism.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

38. Ummm, no they don't.

Broadcast over the air and cable are two different animals, broadcast is using public airways which are free for the consumer while the other venues you have to pay for, you don't even need a license to operate on these venues.

The FCC is forbidden to regulate any content on cable, satellite and internet.

[TheAnnoyedAgnostic]

15. I heard in a court case a few years

that Fox said they’re not even news. Don’t remember what exactly.


Edit:
Guess it was Tucker’s show.
https://www.salon.com/2020/06/18/fox-news-lawyer-tells-judge-that-tucker-carlsons-audience-doesnt-expect-him-to-report-the-facts/

[demtenjeep]

24. and that surprises you?

fox has no airtime at my house ever

[monkeyman1]

26. yepper !! we dumped cable & satellite 5yrs ago & don't miss the bills at all !!

[CloudWatcher]

28. "News"

I'd be happy if we had laws that said if you labeled your information as "news" then you had to not intentionally spread/repeat lies. I think this would be compatible with 1st Amendment rights, but ofc I'm no lawyer.

Sadly the rumor that Canada had banned Fox news because of this appears to be false: Snopes article

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

30. John Oliver said if he was visiting Fox News he'd punch the first person he met.

That person wouldn't react because he would know deep down that he deserved it.

[orleans]

32. i thought fox was the entertainment network. isn't that what they said about their "news"/enter-

tainment shows

[LastDemocratInSC]

34. Fox News is not broadcasting by the conventional definition of that term.

Fox News is a cable only signal. The FCC has authority only over non cable (over the air) stations only.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

36. Not true.

See post #35.

There's loopholes in the regulations, though, pertaining to "immediate harm" and disclaimers about falsehoods.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

39. Ummm, wrong.

See post #38.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

40. Oops, you might be correct.

I went to this FCC site, labeled "Broadcast, Cable and Satellite", linked here:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadcast-cable-and-satellite-guides

Then the first category is labeled "Rules Regarding Content", which implies that it applies to ALL of them, with a link to "Broadcasting False Information" under that category which I posted earlier in this thread.

Yet I somehow overlooked "broadcasting" always being used in those particular rules, even within the title, which are pretty limited in scope anyway.

So now I'm questioning if "broadcasting" does not apply to cable or satellite?

I've certainly used "broadcasting" for all of them, and so does this definition of the term from Brittanica:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/broadcasting
... With the advent of cable television in the early 1950s and the use of satellites for broadcasting beginning in the early 1960s, television reception improved and the number of programs receivable increased dramatically

[underpants]

37. I just flipped over and heard a lie

Douchey said the first vaccine shot is only 30% effective.