Petition Against Fox: Removal of the Broadcasting license issued by the FCC

[babylonsister]

https://www.change.org/p/the-federal-communications-commision-removal-of-the-broadcasting-license-issued-by-the-fcc?after_sign_exp=member_sponsored_donation

Removal of the Broadcasting license issued by the FCC

We feel that Fox News does and willfully distort the news in a manner detrimental to the United States and it's citizens and is done with malice and forethought .

Broadcast Programming: Law and Policy on Specific Kinds of Programming

Introduction. As noted above, in light of the fundamental importance of the free flow of information to our democracy, the First Amendment and the Communications Act bar the FCC from telling station licensees how to select material for news programs, or prohibiting the broadcast of an opinion on any subject. We also do not review anyone’s qualifications to gather, edit, announce, or comment on the news; these decisions are the station licensee’s responsibility. Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion.

Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if:

the station licensee knew that the information was false,
broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm, and
it was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.

In this context, a “crime” is an act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law, and a “catastrophe” is a disaster or an imminent disaster involving violent or sudden events affecting the public. The broadcast must 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, and the public harm must begin immediately. If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. Additional information about the hoax rule can be found on the FCC’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadcasting-false- information.

News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own. However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see http://www.fcc.gov/guides/broadcast-journalism-complaints.
Letter to
The Federal Communications Commision

[elias49]

1. Kick & Rec

Petition signed.
Thanks

[classykaren]

23. Signed too

[99th_Monkey]

2. K&R - If getting pulled off the air was good for Brian Williams

Then is LO-O-O-NG overdue for FOX.

[onenote]

5. Did NBC lose its licenses?

No. And Fox isn't going to either, especially since those licenses are for the Fox broadcast stations and the complaints raised in the petition relate to the Fox News cable channel, which is not licensed by the FCC.

[sabrina 1]

9. They should not be allowed to use the word 'news', ever. They are a propaganda/entertainment

conglomerate that operates around the globe, spreading lies and hatred under the cover of the word 'news'.

There is no resemblance to actual News wrt to Fox.

Let them entertain those who enjoy that kind of gutter humor, but to try to pass it as news, IS detrimental to this country.

[louis-t]

12. Or 'journalism'.

There should be a disclaimer in their crawl at all times that says "nothing you see on this station should be considered fact, we don't engage in journalism of any sort, we don't back-check our stories, in fact, that is just what they are: stories. When we get shit wrong, we neither correct nor apologize (it isn't in our nature), and our only goal is to make boatloads of money from rubes like you the viewer, so goodnight and thanks for the bread."

[sabrina 1]

15. Lol, the only thing I would add to that is 'if we get things wrong we go to court to sue for the

right to lie'!

[99th_Monkey]

26. NBC isn't intentionally lying to the American public 24/7. <- FOX is.

NBC vets its reporters and anchors to make sure they don't lie on the air. (see Brian Williams).

FOX, not at all.

[onenote]

27. As pointed out numerous times, the FCC doesn't license Fox News.

And it's not going to judge the licenses of Fox broadcast stations based on the content of a channel it doesn't regulate.

The petition is a waste of time.

[hopemountain]

38. to you, perhaps.

a petition is still a platform for truth in journalism and the right to free speech against lies, hoaxes, hate mongering, and intent to bring down america via unprofessional "news reporting".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. And sending it to the FCC asking to revoke

a non-existent broadcasting license accomplishes what exactly?

[hopemountain]

46. it symbolizes not condoning

faux news. that's what. why are you so bent on discouraging a valid platform?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. I answered that question already in this thread

I'm in favor of discouraging people, especially Democrats, from taking actions that make them appear ignorant.

[hopemountain]

51. ....

we are not ignorant. it is a form of standing in our truth. self empowerment does not reflect ignorance.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

58. We'll have to agree to disagree

When someone puts their name on petition asking a government entity to revoke a non-existent license from an entity over which they have no legal jurisdiction, IMO, that person appears ignorant.

A petition stating that the signatories agree that Fox News is not really news would have the same effect, i.e., standing on the truth, without making the people that signed appear to be ignorant of facts.

[dumbcat]

95. It seems willful ignorance is OK

if it is for a righteous cause. (Yet we would laugh at the RWers if they did the same thing.)

[SickOfTheOnePct]

97. Yep n/t

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

160. I agree. It's just the sort of thing we mock when Rs do it, and rightly so.

Part of the reason Fox has taken such a hold is that logical thinking and facts are being thrown out in favor of emotional and symbolic rants and demands. Let's not stoop to their level.

[WillowTree]

99. But it's not "truth" that you're standing on. It's wishful thinking.

Because the FCC has no jurisdiction to do the thing you want.

[Travis_0004]

100. Arent you spreading false information

By implying that there is a fcc liscense to pull.

[hopemountain]

117. a what? never heard of one of

those "liscense".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

122. Wow, going after typos...

I smell desperation.

[hopemountain]

124. no desperation, here

and actually, supper smells great.

[mythology]

121. It's not a valid platform

It's pointless since there's no connection between the FCC and a cable channel.

[GGJohn]

76. And all the FCC will do with the petition is circular file it in the trash bin.

FCC has no authority over cable broadcasting, I doubt they'd even read it.

[former9thward]

55. No, veterans caught Williams.

NBC knew all along about Williams but finally they all got caught.

[99th_Monkey]

158. Meanwhile FOX mocks the very idea of 'truth' or 'news'

by lying 24/7 to the American public.

You apparently don't have a problem with that.

[former9thward]

190. I was replying to the lies about NBC.

You apparently don't have a problem with that.

[Warpy]

111. I think they need to remove "News" from their name. It's not news.

It's 100% propaganda and the name should reflect that, if only to comply with "truth in advertising" laws.

I don't necessarily want them off air, if hateful old bastards are watching Pox, they're not on the street picking fights.

I just want them labeled as what they are so that there is no confusion. Either they clean up their act or they lose the right to call themselves "news."

I will not cry when Ailes croaks from a combination of gluttony, avarice, pride, and anger.

[edgineered]

123. precisely - in a loss of self control last week,

i attempted to remind a faux viewer that faux was entertainment, not news. he replied that some of their programs are opinion, but it is a news channel - it says so in their name. knowing this guy for years has resulted in my having no hope for faux viewers - just when you think you're bringing them to reason,

[libdem4life]

3. Signed. Does this even have a bit of a chance? One can hope.

[GGJohn]

78. No, the FCC has no authority over cable broadcast.

Fox News is broadcast over cable.

[onenote]

4. Fox News is a cable channel and is not licensed by the FCC

and the FCC has no authority to regulate the content of Fox News. The FCC does license individual broadcast stations owned by FOX (but not the Fox broadcast network that supplies programming to those stations).

There is essentially no more chance the FCC would consider the content of FOX News when licensing Fox-owned television stations than there is that the FCC would consider the content of News Corp (the ultimate parent of Fox) owned newspapers or the content of motion pictures produced by 21st Century Fox studios.

In other words, this is just pissing in the wind.

[PSPS]

6. The FCC doesn't license cable television channels.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Does the FCC have jurisdiction over cable channels?

I understand the Fox broadcast and syndication news stations, but can the FCC touch Fox "News" Channel cable shows where Fox is doing the most damage?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. The FCC has zero jurisdiction over Fox News Channel n/t

[Liberal In Texas]

25. Exactly Correct.

Individual Fox Owned and Operated and Affiliate Stations could have their licenses challenged.
But the egregious Fox "News" Channel is not licensed.

[BumRushDaShow]

10. Was searching for the last time a license was pulled

and stumbled on this article from almost 3 years ago when there were calls to pull Fox's license (due to the phone hacking scandal). Apparently the last time a license was revoked was almost 30 years ago (RKO). The article noted that even it such were pursued, it would most certainly be tied up in the courts for a decade or more, and the likely outcome if it did get that far, would be a consent decree (a tool which usually comes with all sorts of stipulations for future operation, over a fixed period of time, to allow violations to be corrected, and the fixes verified).

In any case, if it ever came to it, Faux could torpedo their entire lineup (and their support staff) and replace them with an equally egregious group, and then claim innocence to any wrong-doing by pointing to their decision to remove the scapegoats and develop new "revamped operations".

[onenote]

14. The FCC subsequently dismissed CREW's petition to deny Fox's broadcast licenses

[BumRushDaShow]

18. Yup. nt

[Nye Bevan]

11. "does and willfully distort the news"? "it's citizens"?

Is this a plot by Fox to make its opponents look like idiots?

[pinboy3niner]

17. Had to chuckle at how malice aforethought became "malice and forethought"

[Nye Bevan]

39. LOL. Missed that part (nt)

[fishwax]

13. We should also get the DEA to revoke their liquor license

[WillowTree]

45. Now *that's* really funny!!

Thanks for the chuckle!

[brooklynite]

16. UNREC

...for misleading people who might think about signing (assuming for a moment that an internet "petition" had any clout whatsoever). If you just want to "make a statement" and pat yourself on the back, fine. Otherwise, you're petitioning the FCC to do something it has no authority to do.

[Kingofalldems]

69. UNREC your post for discouraging any action against Fox.

[GGJohn]

79. What action?

FCC has no authority over cable, which Fox broadcasts on.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

163. I agree with those who are pointing out the embarrassing Foxlike nature of asking the FCC to

do something to Fox that the FCC simply has no authority to do.

I am all for exposing and ridiculing Fox and those who subscribe to the lack of reason used and encouraged there. I just don't want to use the poor reasoning that I'm hoping to discredit.

And I believe that's what is being said here by many, not discouraging any action against Fox, but discouraging one that makes us look like them.

[RandiFan1290]

19. They broadcast their "news" all over the country on our radio waves

Clear Channel pays them to supply the "news" for radio stations all over the country.

I think the FCC has a say in this no matter what the rw trolls claim

[fishwax]

20. The licenses in question, then, would be Clear Channel's, right?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

21. The onus would be on the individual stations.

[nxylas]

59. So pointing out facts makes one a rw troll?

I guess we could should all trust your gut instinct about what the law probably says instead.

[hopemountain]

62. nothing wrong with trusting a gut instinct

have you read the results of recent studies?

[nxylas]

94. Can you be more specific?

Which particular recent studies are you referring to?

And yes, it's fine to trust a gut instinct...on, say, whether to take that new job or not. When you're trusting a gut instinct on a verifiable fact, like whether the FCC has jurisdiction over a cable channel, then that's called truthiness. It's what Stephen Colbert has spent most of his career satirising. Clearly, it's not just confined to the right side of the aisle.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

77. Pretty funny, huh?

Telling the truth makes one a right wing troll...who knew?

[RandiFan1290]

81. K&R

for pissing off all the right people

[SickOfTheOnePct]

85. If "all the right people" are pissed off by facts

That's their problem, not mine.

[pintobean]

192. It looks to me like you're one

of the pissed off.

[Demeter]

215. That happens far too often on DU

Even when backed up with citations. Or, alternatively, you could be called a bigot...that one's becoming really popular lately.

[calimary]

22. Signed!

What I wrote in the comments box:
"I'm signing because, as a retired broadcast journalist, their idea of "news" is not just misleading, it's a COMPLETE fraud. THEY are primarily to blame for America being so ill-informed. They're not "news" at all. They're pure PROPAGANDA. They should at least change their label to reflect as much."

Whether it's just some petition or whatever - the important thing is the pile-on. The important thing is making noise about this - in WHATEVER way or with WHATEVER vehicle presents itself. Starting the drumbeat. And keeping at it. And making it louder and louder. And adding to the pressure. And not going away. And NOT giving up just because it's some dumb petition.

Do something? Or do nothing? The choice is yours.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. If "do something"

means sign a petition to the FCC asking them to remove the license of an entity over which they have no jurisdiction, I'll stick with "do nothing'

YMMV.

[calimary]

216. The whole over-arching point here is to add to the drumbeat.

The more of this kind of point we can make, from ANY AND ALL sides, from ANY AND ALL strategies, from ANY AND ALL directions, just adds to the drumbeat.

That's how you build to a critical mass. What we WANT - is for this kind of action, THIS issue, THIS complaint in particular, to start coming at its targets FROM ALL SIDES. FROM ALL DIRECTIONS. We want to create a climate where the targets are simply worn down and give up. Like the FCC finally did after it was besieged from seemingly EVERYWHERE on net neutrality. The head of the FCC had balked. Kept saying no, kept denying and defying, kept leaning the wrong way. Wasn't listening. Well, we finally got to him, and we got net neutrality through. Because we assaulted from every direction, every resource, every vehicle, every approach, every strategy, every EVERYTHING.

It becomes cumulative. Like the amount of radiation one body can take over long periods. Pretty soon you reach critical mass and the levy finally fails, the barricades finally break, the resistance finally gives up.

THAT is what this is about. THAT is what this is all about!!!

Stack the Legos, guys. Stack the Legos. Little bits. Every little bit. EVERY. LITTLE. BIT. Every one of those little Lego bricks eventually stacks up to a very tall tower. Every little drop of water is just a little drop of water until it combines with all the other little drops of water - and then you have an ocean.

[NuclearDem]

226. Beat the drums all you like,

it doesn't change the fact cable doesn't operate with broadcasting licenses.

[jberryhill]

228. Then why aren't you asking the FAA to revoke their aircraft license?

Seems like slacking off.

[calimary]

230. Sigh... okay, fine. Do nothing. And miss the point. It is your right.

I believe in drumbeats. And I believe in sending signals that eventually somebody picks up on. And trying to figure out how many different ways to attack the problem. Like the CONS have done - scheming and analyzing and trying to find ANYthing that will bore a hole in the wall, or chip even a small chunk in it, or cause even a hairline crack in it. And eventually they succeed rather mightily, don't they.

Rather than just sitting on, and obsessing on, that which one believes cannot be done, and therefore why try making ANY noise about it. As many of our Dems are still inclined to do. Call it a loss at the get-go and give up, before you even try to figure out how to suit up for the fight.

[jberryhill]

236. Revoking their FAA license would be another drumbeat, no?

I'm suggesting another avenue of attack, and you reject it, why?

[onenote]

232. Drumbeat to do what exactly?

[mountain grammy]

31. +1000

[Duval]

33. Love your comment!

My husband and I signed this weeks ago. What I don't know is : are they licensed for News or Entertainment? It will make a difference to any outcome from this action. But, if it is licensed for Entertainment, then Fox should be forced to eliminate the News part. I don't think our MSM is all that great, however. We have found Free Speech TV to be the best, although Lawrence O'Donnell does a fair job on MSNBC.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Being a cable channel

They aren't licensed by the FCC at all, making the petition completely meaningless.

[calimary]

217. See my post 216, above.

[onenote]

37. Fox News isn't licensed period.

As others have noted, Fox News is a cable channel and cable channels aren't licensed by the government. The 21 Fox owned and operated broadcast stations (approx number) and a roughly equal number of Fox owned "MyNetwork" stations are licensed by the FCC; that license isn't for "news" or "entertainment." Its to operate a station. The government doesn't tell stations what to broadcast.

[hopemountain]

41. so, your intent is to discourage others

from signing a petition you claim will do nothing? why then, are you so vested and coming here to spout such?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. I can't speak for onenote but I can answer for myself

because it makes people look ignorant when they petition a government entity to revoke a non-existent license.

But if they choose to appear ignorant, that's certainly their right.

[hopemountain]

57. standing for truth does not reflect ignorance.

it appears your goal is to disempower people from progressive action by demeaning them with the term "ignorant". good luck with that. nothing like deflection, eh?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. Standing for truth is a good and noble endeavor

And it could be accomplished by having a petition stating that Fox News isn't really news. But calling on the FCC to revoke a non-existent license from an entity over which they have no jurisdiction? Sorry, I stand by my opinion on that.

My goal isn't to disempower anyone - it's to let people know that the petition is meaningless for the reason stated above. If you find the term "ignorant" to be demeaning, that's your issue; it simply means lack of knowledge. Nothing demeaning about that.

[hopemountain]

64. yet, your intent is to discourage by demeaning

with the loaded term "ignorant" - used against those who do not know as much as you, right?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

68. Like I said, we'll agree to disagree

If you choose to be offended, that's your problem, not mine.

[dumbcat]

98. They really don't like being caught

doing what we laugh at the RWers for doing. So they somehow have to justify it and make you feel guilty for pointing out their actions with a "loaded" word (even though it is true.) Sometimes I am ashamed of my own folks.

[hopemountain]

116. don't flatter yourself.

certainly am not one of your ilk. but, go ahead and be ashamed or your own as you should be.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

120. Ashamed?

Your word, not mine...and you accuse me of projection?

[WillowTree]

70. This isn't action. It's as useful as spitting into the wind.

[calimary]

219. See my post 216, above.

[WillowTree]

227. Apparently there's some part of "they have no authority" that escapes you.

Ditto that little detail called the First Amendment.

Have fun beating your drums.

[pipoman]

107. You don't find it a little...unproductive...and maybe silly

To sign a petition claiming fox is lying , asking an agency with no control over the content on fox to revoke a license that doesn't exist?

[calimary]

220. See my post 216, above.

[mythology]

129. But you aren't standing for truth

Instead you are standing for the same sort of lie you're claiming to be condemning. The petition might as well be sent to the FDA as the FCC. Neither has jurisdiction over the Fox News channel.

It's not progressive to lie in order to garner support.

[calimary]

218. See my post 216, above.

[onenote]

234. See my response to post 216

You speak of a drumbeat. But what is the goal of the drumbeat? To force a change in the law so that the FCC can regulate the content of cable networks, something that wouldn't just take a change in the law but a change to the First Amendment? To get Fox to voluntarily change its stripes? What would be their incentive/motivation to do that. To convince people that Fox is BS? The people that watch Fox -- and its not really all that many -- watch Fox because it reinforces what they believe. They aren't going to demand that Fox change its stripes and demands from those of us who don't watch Fox aren't going to influence Fox either.

On the other hand, the petition, asking the FCC to do something it has no authority to do, makes us look foolish for not knowing the law and for taking a position that seems at odds with traditional progressive notions of the First Amendment. For a selection of statements reflecting the traditional notion of the First Amendment, see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6335637

[GGJohn]

82. They're not licensed, they broadcast on cable, FCC has no authority over cable. eom.

[calimary]

221. See my post 216, above.

[hopemountain]

40. yes, a pile on! and still a platform.

i am signing for this reason.

[FrodosPet]

150. Myself, I am going to paint a really cool protest sign

I was thinking of "Fux Faux News Liars!!!" in red, white, and blue. Pictures of Billo and Roger Ailes in clown makeup. It will look freaking SWEET!

Then I am going to stand in my backyard and protest for a couple hours. No one else will see it, but at least I will be doing something.

[GGJohn]

152. LOL.

Good one

[nxylas]

195. Aww, why do you have to be so negative, man?

You're sending out bad vibes to those who are bravely standing for truth and justice by taking two minutes of their valuable time to make a meaningless symbolic gesture. That...that's like mocking GANDHI, man!

[FrodosPet]

211. Now HERE'S some Gandhi mocking!

[Cryptoad]

24. that would be great except

that Fox has already be in court defending the same charges and the court says FOX has a right to lie and distort news if they wish to..... 4th amend shit..

[hopemountain]

44. that's why i am signing.

it is a platform for not condoning lies and distorted news and the fox news shit.

[Cryptoad]

63. I had rather see one against MSNBC

Fox has become like the Onion.... everybody knows how Fox is soppose to be ,,,,, but MSNBC is far worst than FOX this last year!

[WillowTree]

60. What does "unreasonable searches and seizures" have to do with it?

[Cryptoad]

66. I didn't say anything about "unreasonable searches and seizures"

[WillowTree]

71. Try reading the 4th amendment and get back to us.

[GGJohn]

86. I think you meant the 1st Amendment, not the 4th Amendment. eom.

[Cryptoad]

87. typo... my bad... sorry

[Bluenorthwest]

164. Except none of that is accurate. The case people cite was against a Fox broadcast affiliate, not

FoxNews and...just read the Snopes link. And understand that convincing the public that FoxNews has won the right to lie serves no one but FoxNews.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxlies.asp

[calimary]

222. See my post 216, above.

[Joe Johns]

28. I'M IN!

Where do I go to sign?

[mountain grammy]

30. I signed and don't care that it probably won't happen..

I would just like to see as many signatures as Fox has viewers. It would send a message.

[Duval]

32. Signed this a while back. nt

[lpbk2713]

35. Whenever Faux has to defend itself legally they deny being a news outlet.

They claim in court they are an "entertainment" outlet and
that gives them the right to lie, exaggerate and distort.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. When has that happened?

I didn't realize there had been legal challenges against Fox News Channel being a news channel.

[Dr. Strange]

207. You sure you're not thinking of the WWE?

[onenote]

214. I doubt Fox News has ever claimed it was an "entertainment" outlet

With good reason. The equal opportunities rule (typically but incorrectly referred to as the equal time rule) contains exceptions for newscasts and news interviews. If anything, the FCC has fallen all over itself in recent years to find that shows that most people would consider entertainment programs can be, during some segments, news interview programs. Thus, when Arnold Schwartzenegger appeared on the Tonight Show during his election campaign and his opponent demanded "equal time", the FCC found that the rule didn't apply because the Arnold-Jay segment constituted a bona fide news interview.

[hopemountain]

251. yes, because they are owned

by:
"Fox News Channel, also known as Fox News, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of 21st Century Fox." Wikipedia

[Omaha Steve]

42. Marta & I signed

K&R!

[LiberalElite]

48. K&R & Signed nt

[hopemountain]

50. signed

thank you, babylonsister.

[Roy Rolling]

52. Done, and done n/t

[WillowTree]

53. What "Broadcasting license issued by the FCC"? There is no such license.

Should give the folks at the FCC a chuckle, though.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

65. No doubt! n/t

[babylonsister]

67. I just googled this; seems there

are a lot of people who disagree with you...

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=AwrTccy8zvxURk0ASLMlnIlQ;_ylc=X1MDMTM1MTE5NTY4NQRfcgMyBGZyA3locy1tb3ppbGxhLTAwMwRncHJpZANKN2dwY1FtV1RuLm15ekYzNjcwdHJBBG5fcnNsdAMwBG5fc3VnZwM0BG9yaWdpbgNzZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tBHBvcwMxBHBxc3RyA2ZjYyBicm9hZGNhc3RpbmcgbGljZW5zZSBmb3gEcHFzdHJsAzI4BHFzdHJsAzMzBHF1ZXJ5A2ZjYyBicm9hZGNhc3RpbmcgbGljZW5zZSBmb3ggbmV3cwR0X3N0bXADMTQyNTg1NDE0OQ--?p=fcc+broadcasting+license+fox+news&fr2=sa-gp-search&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003

[WillowTree]

73. So lots of people don't know that the FCC has no authority over nor does it license cable channels.

Doesn't make them right. Or smart.

[babylonsister]

80. So tell that to the FCC...

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/license-renewal-applications-television-broadcast-stations

[SickOfTheOnePct]

84. You do realize that the page you linked to is for broadcast channels, right?

And Fox News isn't a broadcast channel, it's cable. Two totally different animals when it comes to regulation.

[calimary]

223. See my post 216, above.

[GGJohn]

88. That's for broadcast channels, Fox broadcasts on Cable,

of which the FCC has no authority.

[WillowTree]

89. If you refuse to acknowledge the difference.......

.......between "broadcast stations" and cable channels, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Have a nice day.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

75. A bunch of links to people asking that a broadcasting license be revoked

doesn't change the fact that cable channels don't have broadcasting licenses.

[cstanleytech]

127. They do have to have varies licenses though to operate inside the US.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

128. The cable companies do

But the FCC doesn't grant licenses for cable channels to operate.

[cstanleytech]

141. Yes, I know but I will point out alot of those companies are based in the US and those

companies themselves are licensed for varies things and they have to obey US law not mention the cable companies themselves so there are options that can be explored to resolve the varies problems like say fox news.
The problem is though I doubt you could get anyone in the government to really do anything about because lets face it these corporations for the most part have deep pockets and can usually buy their way out of whatever problem simply by greasing the right palms with "donations", funding a PAC for a candidate for office or hiring someone as a "lobbyist" once they leave office.

[WillowTree]

143. What law(s) do you think FNC is breaking in their programming?

And sorry.......I generally don't get into grammar policing, but please, learn the difference between "varies" and "various". You've done that at least three times on this thread alone, so it's not a typo and it's becoming annoying.

[cstanleytech]

145. I know another annoying thing

grammar policing but its a good you dont generally do it right?

[WillowTree]

147. Ah.......dodging the pertinent question. Like no one would notice.

[cstanleytech]

149. No, dodge. Answer is nothing illegal but you already knew that

so its not like I am telling you anything you didnt already know..............is it?
But, please feel free get back to your grammar policing as the forum is in dire need of your valuable services.

[WillowTree]

135. Doesn't regulate them, either.

[cstanleytech]

138. They do but not in the manner many of us want them to.

[GGJohn]

139. I think the majority of Americans don't want the FCC to have regulatory powers

over cable, I especially don't, cable is fine just as it is, wide open.

[cstanleytech]

142. I disagree that its fine as it is right now. Look at how cable and other communication

companies are servicing our country and its not a pretty picture especially for small rural towns.
I mean hell you had the ceo for AT&T essentially threatening the FCC last year http://www.business2community.com/tech-gadgets/att-threatens-to-stop-building-fiber-network-because-of-net-neutrality-fcc-fires-back-01069119

[GGJohn]

144. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. eom.

[cstanleytech]

148. Wait, does this actually mean you are ok with the CEO for AT&T threatening the FCC?

[GGJohn]

151. Didn't say I was ok with that,

but I fail to see what AT&T has to do with cable providers.
I'll say again, I don't want the FCC to have any regulatory power over cable network.

[cstanleytech]

154. Well then to update you AT&T has a service they have been slowly deploying

over the last few years called U-verse and in some areas they provide all the channels cable providers carry.

[Kath1]

54. I signed.

Total RW proaganda, in my opinion.

Sorry to say that my parents have brainwashed by their shit.

[Katashi_itto]

56. Signed

[ThingsGottaChange]

72. Signed!

[LiberalArkie]

74. Fox News that is on cable is not a broadcast. They may hold a license for the

satellite uplink (doubtful probably lease the system). Anybody with money can purchase a channel on a satellite and have at it.

However the over the air channels are regulated, but I do not think that Fox news has any of those. Fox entertainment (the Simpsons) does, but does not broadcast Fox News. Even if the "equal time" provision was reinstated, it would not pertain to the Fox News channel as it is again not a broadcast it is a cable program must like the shopping channel and others. In fact I believe that the Fox News channel is not even classified as "News" but "Entertainment".

[mmonk]

202. While particular shows such as Fox News are cable, they still have broadcast channels.

[dumbcat]

210. Fox News is not a "show"

it is a channel. And Fox News does not have any broadcast channels.

(And I am not defending Fox News. I am defending truth, and shaking my head at the willful ignorance on display by people who should know better.)

[C Moon]

83. Maybe the FDA will allow them, instead of news, to use the word "wholesome."

But that's not a noun, so that won't work.

[FrodosPet]

181. But "wholesomeness" is!

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/wholesomeness

Perhaps the EPA would be the best agency to deal with Faux?

Thinkaboutit.

[C Moon]

182. :D ...so true! Thanks!

[Motown_Johnny]

90. K....R...Signed....Shared.....Tweeted....etc... n/t

[cstanleytech]

91. I realize that the FCC probably cant touch them because they are on cable but what about going after

the cable providers themselves as an accessory because doesnt the FCC license them?

[GGJohn]

92. I don't believe they do, but even if they did,

they wouldn't hold the providers responsible for what Fox broadcasts, the would be akin to holding Ford responsible for a drunk driver killing someone while driving on of their vehicles.

[cstanleytech]

96. Not exactly an apt comparison as Ford clearly could not know a that a specific

driver would drive one of their cars while drunk.
If anything this case is similar to an internet provider who has a customer that is sharing movies illegally and they are doing nothing at all about it thus imo the cable companies should be held accountable by the FCC.

[onenote]

184. No the FCC doesn't license cable companies.

Cable companies operate pursuant to franchises granted by state and local governments. And under the express terms of the Communications Act, neither the FCC nor state and local governments may, with narrow exceptions for "obscene" material, impose requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services.

[Travis_0004]

104. the FCC doesnt regulate cable

Cable doesnt use public airwaves so they can do about whatever they want.

[cstanleytech]

108. Tell that to the FCC

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/faqs-television-and-cable

[WillowTree]

114. They have some, pretty limited authority over cable *companies*, not the cable channels.

From a link on the very page you refer to

. "No, the FCC does not have the authority to censor programming."

Parse that any way you want to, it still won't get one minute's consideration to this pointless petition.

[cstanleytech]

125. They are not preventing the cable companies from speaking though thus its not censorship.

They would however be holding them responsible for their customers actions much like how internet providers can potentially be held accountable for a customer if the customer is illegally sharing movies and the provider doesnt take action to address the problem after being informed.

[GGJohn]

130. True, but what is Fox doing that's illegal? eom.

[cstanleytech]

134. Well if we ignore the wiretapping over in the UK...............nothing offhand however

thats not my point which is that the FCC can hold the cable companies responsible for the actions of a channel if there is a problem and they are made aware of it and yet take no corrective action.

[GGJohn]

137. Well, according to the courts,

Fox isn't doing anything wrong, so what could the FCC demand of the cable provider?

[cstanleytech]

161. Right now? Pretty much nothing. They could try to do something of course but

the cable companies would go to court and if the courts failed to give them the verdict they wanted they would go to congress who they have "donated" to for years and get them pass something to get FCC off their back so in the end nothing would really happen except some lawyers (and some politicians) would be taking some nice vacations.

[WillowTree]

133. Two things here.

First, the channels are not the cable companies' "customers". We are the customers.

Second, your comparison isn't valid, either. You're trying to compare requiring an IP to take steps to make sure that their services are being used within the boundaries of the law and saying that the cable company should be subject to some sort of penalty because one of their content providers is doing something that is in no way illegal, no matter how much you want it to be.

Nice try, though.

[cstanleytech]

159. I am merely pointing out that its one way the FCC could try to do it

while giving it the best shot at surviving a court challenge assuming congress went along with it not that they will considering how much money the cable industry has to kill such an attempt.

[onenote]

185. See post #184

The FCC is expressly barred by the terms of the Communications Act from imposing any requirements on cable operators regarding the provision or content of the cable channels that they offer to subscribers.

Your idea wouldn't survive a court challenge. It would never ever get that far.

[ProudProg2u]

93. This one time I wish Fux lies about "voter fraud' was true..

So I could vote a trillion times more.

[tritsofme]

101. Maybe we can sign a petition asking the EPA to declare Fox News toxic sludge or something.

Might be fun, but about as relevant as this sort of silliness.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

102. +1000 n/t

[Jamastiene]

105. I wish this would work.

But, I'm pretty sure that it won't. Thanks for trying though. I will tweet it out anyhow, even though a billion signatures could not unbuy the right wingers at the FCC.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

106. Yeah, especially since the FCC doesn't regulate cable

We could have five socialists on the FCC, and they still couldn't do anything like this.

[cstanleytech]

109. They do regulate the cable companies a bit but they dont regulate the channels.

For example they can say no to a merger that cable company wants to make.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

113. Very true - thank you for the correction! n/t

[marble falls]

110. Signed and shared.

[Dr. Strange]

112. We should also petition Kanye West, FAFSA, and the NCAA.

[840high]

115. I don't petition against

freedom of speech. I just don't watch Fox.

[FrodosPet]

153. Thank you!!!

I would rather see Fox News go out of business because everyone woke up to their BS than to have an authoritative government using force to impose its own particular version of truth.

[jaysunb]

118. I could definitely get behind a campaign to save

America from the greatest ever threat to the Nation.

[Savannahmann]

119. Somebody tell me again how we are the smart party.

Because we seem to be astonishingly stupid. Signing a petition to ban the network that broadcast the Simpsons because the cable channel, which the FCC has zero jurisdiction over demonstrates just how amazingly dumb we've become.

[RiverLover]

132. "We feel that Fox News does and willfully distort the news"

But it sounds smart!

(Someone needs an editor)

[mythology]

136. To be fair, the competition doesn't believe in evolution, climate change

how old the earth is, that Obama is Kenyan, Muslim and a socialist, etc.

So by comparison, this is silly, but not like that.

[FrodosPet]

172. This is ammo for Faux News followers

Hopefully it fades away before too many people notice the obvious flaws.

[Oktober]

193. I think arguing over who is the least stupid...

... is probably not the way to go.

[840high]

157. I can't believe all the rec's to this OP.

[Zorra]

126. signed & recommended

[GGJohn]

131. Recommended for what?

FCC has no authority over cable, of which Fox broadcasts on.

[Zorra]

155. This petition is to take Fox's Broadcast licenses away, not their cable show(s). nt

[WillowTree]

156. Did you actually click on the link and read the petition?

The petition is to take the license of Fox NEWS, which isn't a broadcast station, it's a cable channel.

[GGJohn]

165. Fox News doesn't have a broadcast license, they broadcast on cable,

of which FCC has no, nada, zero, zip authority to regulate.

[Thespian2]

140. Yeah

just signed. If they change the name to Faux Entertainment, it might help...not really.

[Nye Bevan]

146. When it's not just MALICE. Not just FORETHOUGHT. But Malice AND Forethought.

That really takes it to a whole new level.

(Got to credit DUer pinboy3niner for spotting this).

[GGJohn]

166. How can the FCC take away something that doesn't exist?

The FCC has no authority over Fox News as it broadcasts on cable.
All the FCC will do with this petition is trash it as they can't do anything.

[GGJohn]

173. So, you're in favor of shutting down Fox because you don't like them?

I thought that's what the republicans like to do, censorship.

[yuiyoshida]

175. So Nazi propaganda was okay with you?

Even if they want to kill off the Jews...Its their right to say it... okay Does Fox News take it that far? They sure are close to it.. Just give them a few years.

[GGJohn]

176. No, and I never once said Fox was ok with me,

what's not ok with me is the attempt to stifle free speech because you don't like the message.

I've said it many times, I may not like the words, but I will defend someone's right to say it.

[yuiyoshida]

177. Yes we have free speech in this country

But we also have the entire MEDIA owned by Republicans. Where is OUR FREE SPEECH? Where do we have to find our brand of it? On the internet... YEAH THAT'S TOTALLY FAIR, isn't it?

[GGJohn]

178. So your solution would be to shut down opposition networks?

Isn't that what dictators and facists do?
Instead of this misleading and false petition, how about a petition to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine?
Although these days, there is so many sources for info that it's not really needed.

[yuiyoshida]

179. No how about this..

There are major networks in this country... one of which is all fantasy and Lies. Bring back the truth in broadcasting thing, and take away one companies ability to claim it is news when it says its really entertainment. THey want to spread bullshit? Fine, let them spread bullshit, but don't call it CHERRY PIE WHEN ITS BULLSHIT... MAKE them EAT IT... if they THINK ITS CHERRY PIE, and LET truth be known about what is AND what is not a Real News Network.

[Throd]

183. But maybe other people will be deciding what is "bullshit and lies".

People who don't agree with you.

[GummyBearz]

194. I think

The guy is rightfully pointing out that freedom of speech is quite necessary. Maybe today the government censors foxnews... but a time may come further down the line when conservatives want to censor everything BUT foxnews. This is why freedom of speech is written right into the first amendment of the constitution.

We are supposed to be the "smart party", and encouraging government censorship of speech isn't very smart.

[onenote]

198. Would you sign a petition to have the government regulate the content of websites

and shut down those that don't meet certain standards?

Would you sign a petition to have the government regulate the content of newspapers and magazines and shut down those that don't meet certain standards?

Are you comfortable that the government would always interpret what is "truth" what is a "lie" what is opinion and what is fact the same as you would?

Think about it.

[onenote]

200. Since you'll have some free time,

borrow a copy of the Constitution and read the First Amendment.
Also, study up on William O. Douglas. A lot of us progressives regard him as the gold standard when it comes to issues relating to the First Amendment. I'm guessing you don't know much about him at all.

Here's Douglas on the First Amendment, broadcasting, and the government-imposed "responsibility":

"My conclusion is that TV and radio stand in the same protected position under the First Amendment as do newspapers and magazines. The philosophy of the First Amendment requires that result, for the fear that Madison and Jefferson had of government intrusion is perhaps even more relevant to TV and radio than it is to newspapers and other like publications. That fear was founded not only on the spectre of a lawless government but of government under the control of a faction that desired to foist its views of the common good on the people. In popular terms that view has been expressed as follows:

'The ground rules of our democracy, as it has grown, require a free press, not necessarily a responsible or a temperate one. There aren't any halfway stages. As Aristophanes saw, democracy means that power is generally conferred on second-raters by third-raters, whereupon everyone else, from first-raters to fourth-raters, moves with great glee to try to dislodge them. It's messy but most politicians understand that it can't very well be otherwise and still be a democracy.' Stewart, reviewing Epstein, News From Nowhere: Television and the News (1972), Book World, Washington Post, March 25, 1973, pp. 4-5.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING v. DEMOCRATIC COMM., 412 U.S. 94 (1973)(Douglas concurring).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

203. They'd love it.

They'll take this petition and run with their 'martyrdom' and how horrible liberals want to 'silence' them and take away their 'Constitutional rights!'

Sadly, it plays right into the memes they already propagate.

[tammywammy]

167. Stupid waste of time

There is no broadcast license for Fox News and the FCC can't do anything since its a cable channel.

Signing this petition will do absolutely nothing.

[dumbcat]

171. It makes the signers feel good

So there is that. It also makes them look dumb, so there is also that. So I call it a wash.

[Bluenorthwest]

168. This is gibberish, there is no such thing as a broadcast license in cable TV because it does not,

as they say, broadcast and that's just the start of it. You can not properly oppose a thing you do not even understand. It's not that hard to understand.

[blkmusclmachine]

169. We deceive you

believe

[Hutzpa]

174. Kicking this to the GREATEST page.

[Calista241]

180. Thanks for making us look like idiots.

The FCC can't do anything to anyone just for having an agenda. The fact that they are extraordinarily good at what they do is not material. You, and everyone else alive in this country, has the choice to tune in and watch something else if that is what you wish.

And you better be careful what you wish for. Even if what you wanted was possible, which it isn't, eventually there will be a Republican President, and they will have the power to appoint their own FCC commissioners.

Besides, TV is going the way of the Dodo bird. By the time you fought this huge battle, and paid for all the negative press it would cause, we would have moved onto the next communication medium and your lawsuit wouldn't have mattered in the first place.

[calimary]

224. See my post 216, above.

[Grassy Knoll]

186. I signed it, But ....

Where would LOW informed voters get their talking points, AM free speech hate radio?
Their hate will always find a source , and repeat it like a pez dispenser.

[relayerbob]

187. Bad Idea - Hate Fox, hate censorship more

After guaranteeing the victory of the GOP in the election, what do you think they would do to the "liberal" media in retaliation. Doesn't matter, because this would never happen. We may not agree, but I will defend their right to say whatever stupid crap comes out of their mouths.

[pipi_k]

254. Couldn't agree

more.


Today it's the Left trying to censor/silence a RW entity.


Next year it could be RWers trying to censor/silence an entity on the Left.


And no doubt most of the people cheering for the shutting down of something they don't like or agree with (Fox News) would be screeching like banshees about FREEDOM OF SPEECH if their own words or opinions came under similar attack from Conservatives.

Double standards. Hypocrisy.


So. I agree with you. Fox News sucks big time. But there's danger in trying to get government agencies to censor words based on political differences.

[onenote]

188. It annoys me when the Internet is used to spread misinformation

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 07:42 AM - Edit history (1)

And it particularly annoys me when our side does it.

That doesn't mean, however, that I think the content of what gets disseminated over the Internet should be subject to government oversight.

So let's review (and FWIW, I've been practicing communications law for more than three decades and have worked on several First Amendment cases):

Fox News is not licensed by the FCC or anyone else.

The courts have held that cable channels like Fox News (or HBO or CNN or ESPN or Disney and on and on) are more like a newspaper or magazine than broadcast stations for purposes of the First Amendment. Thus, while the FCC can license television stations, it can't and doesn't license cable program networks.

The Communications Act expressly bars the federal government, including the FCC, as well as state and local governments from imposing any requirements on a cable television system regarding the content or provision of cable channels (with narrow exceptions prohibiting obscenity and provisions giving local broadcast stations the option of demanding "mandatory carriage" on cable systems.

The oft-cited claim that Fox News has been held to have a right to lie is actually based on a single, mid-level state court case involving a Tampa broadcast station (not Fox News) and the interpretation and application of a provision of a state "whistleblower law."

Finally, the FCC is governed by, among other things, the Communications Act and the Administrative Procedure. IF you want to revoke a station's license, there are specific procedures to follow. A petition that is not accompanied by a sworn statement setting forth particular facts in support of the petition isn't ever going to cut it.

I don't watch Fox News and don't have a lot of respect for those that do. But it's not the governments place to ban media outlets, whether they be newspapers, magazines, websites, or cable channels.

[cyberswede]

189. Too bad we can't bring back the Fairness Doctrine. nt

[nxylas]

196. Now that's a petition I'd sign

I'm fairly skeptical about the value of internet petitions generally, but at least it's a meaningful goal that a person can put their name to without looking like a fucking idiot.

[mmonk]

201. Done.

[Enthusiast]

204. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[The Wizard]

205. Pox propaganda makes

Goebbels look like a rank amateur.

[samsingh]

206. kick 1million times

[Marrah_G]

208. First amendment, folks

Just remember to be careful what you wish for.

[Dr. Strange]

212. The First Amendment doesn't apply to hate speech...

or offensive speech
or obnoxious speech
or commercial speech
or speech that I disagree with
or speech that involves really big words that I didn't learn in high school
or speech from any of the Baldwin brothers save Alex
or any of Nickelback's albums.

[jberryhill]

241. The only one you got right was the Nickelback albums

[Dr. Strange]

246. There's a sentence you don't hear often.

The only one you got right was the Nickelback albums

[GoneOffShore]

209. Signed

Thank you.

[NuclearDem]

213. Broadcast licenses are issued by the FCC to allocate use of the radio frequency spectrum.

As cable doesn't use the spectrum, but rather cables, the FCC doesn't issue broadcast licenses to cable stations.

[calimary]

225. See my post 216, above.

[2naSalit]

229. Petition won't accept my signature

because I don't have a street address. I only have a PO Box.

[hopemountain]

250. try again.

my p.o. box was accepted as an address.

[2naSalit]

252. Thanks, it worked this time.

I don't know what the deal was earlier.

[Faux pas]

231. Signed!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

235. Wrong on all counts

It wasn't Fox News, it was a local Fox affiliate, it wasn't the Supreme Court, it was a Florida district appeals court, and the decision had nothing to do with the right to lie, it had to do with whether or not an allegation of distorting the news falls under the whistleblower protection statute.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

237. The Iranian Foreign Minister dropped us a note. He says "the FCC doesn't license cable channels."

[pinboy3niner]

239. *SNORT*

Well-played!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

249. Thanks. Have to admit I kinda tickled myself with that one, too.

[libdem4life]

238. Thank you Calimary and Hope Mountain who stood with your posts. I confess to be one of the

media ignoramuses who did not understand these details...and I signed it and would sign it again. Why?

We are working on the 100th Monkey concept....tried and true. 99 Monkeys laughed at the silly idea of washing sweet potatoes before consumption (IIRC) until...yep...number 100 stepped up to the river and the rest followed. I believe that "monkey" is due for Fox News. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow...but it will come.

[onenote]

240. "See my post 216" posted 10 times, but no response to a request to explain

what or how the "drumbeat" alluded to in post 216 is supposed to accomplish. I thought about posting my request for tha explanation ten times, but I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much point to that.

[libdem4life]

242. Yeah? Explanations are good, as a professional educator, I'm missing Your Point.

But why people here want to jump on posters in defense of Fox News is beyond me. And yes, harrassing posters qualifies. Is it too much to ask to just post more information? Nobody is DU or Democratic perfect...really. We are, after all, supposedly on the same side.

Peace.

[onenote]

243. I don't think anyone is defending Fox News

I certainly am not.
But it's entirely appropriate to point out, critically, why it is both legally incorrect and a bad idea to publicly call for the FCC to do something it has neither the statutory nor constitutional authority to do. Call for people to boycott Fox and/or its sponsors? Cool. Call for the government to "punish" Fox News because of its content. Not cool.

For a more detailed explanation, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6337841 and the post linked therein.

[libdem4life]

248. I get that ... but I did not know that until this thread. So, we all learn. That's why I come here

And it is appropriate to correct, but not bad to post opinions that may have more specialized responses. That's all. DU pundits like to Pile On. Lord knows we have lots of special knowledge here.

[pipi_k]

253. And it won't

get a reply, either, because people really don't want to admit that something they're doing is pointless. Not as long as it gives them the feeling that they're doing something. It's just too bad that same energy and passion can't be directed toward more useful endeavors.

I feel much the same way about the occasional "DU This Poll" posts where people are directed to some totally pointless poll on some other site for the purpose of skewing the results in favor of the Left. Is there a point there? What's the point? Will it change anything? The poll will probably disappear within 48 hours anyway, and who the hell cares?

The most that happens is someone looks at the results of the poll, says, "Hmmm...interesting", and then posts a whole different poll for people to vote on or skew, whatever makes them happy.

All pointless...

[Sheepshank]

244. I'm guessing it will take 138,628,021 mosquitoes to suck this elephant dry

some over achievers may actually explode from the effort. Some may inadervetantly hit an artery and once the blood letting starts, momentum may help with the rest.

[onenote]

247. Nah. Just 24 business hours.

[onenote]

245. Today is the anniversary of NY Times v Sullivan

Last edited Mon Mar 9, 2015, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

One of the most important first amendment decisions in Supreme Court history and one that seems to have been forgotten by posters who seem willing to let the government adjudicate the content of speech for "truthfulness." The Sullivan decision, written by Justice Brennan for a unanimous court, raised the bar on defamation actions against the media for statements -- even false statements -- about public officials. Justice Goldberg, writing a concurring opinion joined by Justice Douglas, explained it thusly:

The American Colonists were not willing, nor should we be, to take the risk that "[m]en who injure and oppress the people under their administration [and] provoke them to cry out and complain" will also be empowered to "make that very complaint the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions." The Trial of John Peter Zenger, 17 Howell's St. Tr. 675, 721-722 (1735) (argument of counsel to the jury). To impose liability for critical, albeit erroneous or even malicious, comments on official conduct would effectively resurrect "the obsolete doctrine that the governed must not criticize their governors." Cf. Sweeney v. Patterson, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 23, 24, 128 F.2d 457, 458.