←back to thread

125 points voxadam | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ahmeneeroe-v2 ◴[] No.45339423[source]
The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
replies(9): >>45339461 #>>45339475 #>>45339529 #>>45339534 #>>45339574 #>>45339951 #>>45340085 #>>45340187 #>>45340473 #
lenerdenator ◴[] No.45339534[source]
How is Jimmy's speech immoral?

A list of words you can't say is about morality; it's a drag but at least it's objective. You either said the word or you didn't.

This is far more subjective.

replies(1): >>45339611 #
ahmeneeroe-v2[dead post] ◴[] No.45339611[source]
[flagged]
1. beej71 ◴[] No.45342827{3}[source]
Even if he did lie, that's absolutely protected speech and the FCC is out of line. Every Constitution-respecting American knows this and would be against the FCC saying anything no matter what party was in charge.
replies(1): >>45346176 #
2. bmelton ◴[] No.45346176[source]
The speech itself may be protected, but it endangers ABC's broadcast license. If ABC knowingly broadcasts a lie the broadcast of that lie causes harms, then it is in violation of FCC's section 73.1217, which specifically exists to thwart against "Broadcast Hoaxes"

In fairness to the provision, I think it's outdated, and I've argued against its relevance and that it seems unlikely to me to stand up in any court that interprets 1A jurisprudence to a modern standard, but the law exists and exists specifically to prevent against broadcast lies.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.1217

replies(1): >>45360905 #
3. beej71 ◴[] No.45360905[source]
If that's the case, then Fox News would be in a heap of trouble.