Supreme Court examines whether government can combat disinformation online
Source: NPR
March 18, 2024 5:00 AM ET
In a major case testing the role of the First Amendment in the internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday hears arguments focused on the federal government's ability to combat what it sees as false, misleading or dangerous information online.
Last September, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most conservative federal appeals court in the U.S., issued a broad ruling that barred key government officials from contacts with social media companies.
Among the personnel targeted in the order were officials at the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of the Surgeon General, the FBI and an important cybersecurity agency.
The appeals court said that individuals at those agencies likely violated the First Amendment by seeking to coerce social media platforms into moderating or changing their content about COVID-19, foreign interference in elections and even Hunter Biden's laptop. The Supreme Court has put that ruling on hold while it examines the tricky issues in the case.
Read more: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/18/1238122337/supreme-court-social-media-disinformation-first-amendment
= new reply since forum marked as read
The Fairness Doctrine is not some magical pixie dust that makes the truth materialize out of nowhere.
Its constitutional underpinnings (scarcity of the broadcast spectrum and the FCC's licensing power) have pretty much gone the way of the dodo.
Honestly, how much of your information comes from over the air, FCC licensed sources?
If you are like most people, you get your information from the web or cable outlets both of which are beyond the FCC's regulatory power and very little from the three major broadcast networks.
As I mentioned earlier, the scarcity argument is no longer valid. Back then, you had TV networks ABC, NBC, CBS and later Fox (not the news network but the entertainment side) and a spread of radio stations.
By the 1980s, cable penetrated and provided new sources (CNN and its ilk) and then came the internet which provides a consumer virtually unlimited sources. These technological changes wiped out the constitutional justification for its existence,
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, especially if it was expanded beyond the FCC's mandate, would draw innumerable 1st amendment claims which would more than likely be upheld and the expanded Fairness Doctrine would die.
You DO REALIZE that laws/statutes can be changed/adapted right?
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was one such piece of legislation that sought to update the old radio/telephone-based communication to include newer technology and opened up the "web" for "commercial use" (where previously it was limited to federal people like ME (before I retired) with .gov access (along with the .mil & .edu).
No you need to put on your "way back" goggles and compare "back then" to "now" and realize that "nothing is set in stone" and "laws/rules/regulations" CAN CHANGE.
Lots of fun, huh?
The First Amendment itself dealt with "petitioning the government for redress". FULL STOP.
How that "happens" is the debate here - whether you go out and protest with a sign or appear on a "government-licensed" outlet.
"Anecdotally", I worked at my college radio station (FM 1000W) the 4 years (late '70s - early '80s) I was there and went through the process to obtain what was then dubbed a "Third Class Radiotelephone Operator's Permit" so that I could operate the (old/analog) board and shut down/turn on the station transmitter as needed (as well as maintain the station log for the FCC). While in college I *did * have computer/mainframe/internet access. In addition, my father was a programmer for the VA (pre-Department creation when it was called the "Veteran's Administration" ) where he was programming in COBOL (for the VA Benefits checks), from the mid -'50s to the mid-'70s (when he passed away).
Sometimes people know a bit more than you think and you know what they say about one who might ASSUME.
