How Fox News works

[Planet Houston 4930]

Not a coincidence that this all happens the day that the news of Fox’s vaccine passports breaks. 

[956 Worldwide 34715]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

This Thursday, my family is hosting a memorial service for my Fox News loving father. I thought about it some this weekend and asked my mom to talk with both the funeral home as well as the church where we'll be having a luncheon. I asked her please to put up signs and make some available for the ignorant assess, because I don't want his service to be a super spreader event amongst her social group, of which my 80-year-old mom told me that about half of her friends refuse to get the shot.

She doesn't understand it, and I told her it was probably because they all watch Fox News and are listening to Tucker Carlson for healthcare advice. She answered in a defiant "he never questioned the virus!" tone, but admitted that her friends have said they could never believe a word that came out of Fauci's mouth. I could only shake my head and ask that masks are made available, because the irony of people dying from catching a virus that my stubborn-headed dad's funeral would be too much.

Right now, in my home county, only 52% over the age of 65 are fully vaccinated, as well as only 25% of the entire population.

Damn this is infuriating. Absolutely infuriating. I had a small twinge of hope that the propaganda machine wouldn’t go so far as to try and make their targets sick and die, but I somehow manage to keep thinking there is a floor. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

5 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Damn this is infuriating. Absolutely infuriating. I had a small twinge of hope that the propaganda machine wouldn’t go so far as to try and make their targets sick and die, but I somehow manage to keep thinking there is a floor. 

There is none

[tx 3 putt 77061]

8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m on phone so no quote but apparently Tucker is now touting the benefits of the vaccine.  

Hannity did the same

[yoladu 4094]

8 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m on phone so no quote but apparently Tucker is now touting the benefits of the vaccine.  

 

12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Hannity did the same

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Fox News does this thing where they say something reasonable for a minute and then go right back to spewing dangerous nonsense 24/7.  This is one of those times. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5793]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fox News does this thing where they say something reasonable for a minute and then go right back to spewing dangerous nonsense 24/7.  This is one of those times. 

Yeah at this point in the simulation, the people tweeting "I didn't see this coming from Sean/Tucker" and the people who think anyone at Fox gives a single fuck about their shitty viewers or anyone else will never learn. Something spooked their lawyers or something threatened their wallet. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

28 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Yeah at this point in the simulation, the people tweeting "I didn't see this coming from Sean/Tucker" and the people who think anyone at Fox gives a single fuck about their shitty viewers or anyone else will never learn. Something spooked their lawyers or something threatened their wallet. 

It sparked a memory and I had to go back looking for it, but I wonder if it concerns the idea that people are being harmed. Fatality is a concrete injury I would think, and that reminded me of this article/interview on NPR. Five minute read, from 2012. Whether it is a civil matter or a criminal one, perhaps it is as Hugo says and they're just trying to cover all the bases. Also, @TwiceHorn has the Constitutional expertise, so hopefully will weigh in on the discussion.

Is A Lie Just Free Speech, Or Is It A Crime?

Rest behind spoiler. It is specifically related to the Stolen Valor Act, but the debate regarding a falsehood was what I found interesting. Free speech and all that.

Spoiler

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the subject of lying on Wednesday.

Specifically at issue was the constitutionality of a 2006 law that makes it a crime to lie about having received a military medal. But the questions posed by the justices ranged far beyond that — from advertising puffery to dating lies.

At the center of the case is Xavier Alvarez, a former California county water board member who is an undisputed liar. Among his lies is that he played professional hockey, served in the Marines and rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. None of those lies was illegal.

But when he claimed to have won the "Congressional Medal of Honor," that lie was a violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals.

Alvarez appealed his conviction and won. A federal appeals court struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Wednesday told the justices that the law regulates only a narrowly drawn category of calculated falsehoods, and that the "pinpointed" pure lies targeted by the statute are not speech protected by the First Amendment.

But Verrilli soon faced a barrage of questions about when Congress can make it a crime to tell a lie that does not defraud or defame.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor began by asking whether, under this law, the government could have prosecuted a Vietnam War protester for holding up a sign that said, "I won a Purple Heart — for killing babies," when the protester had not won the medal.

Verrilli answered that "it would depend" whether that expression was "reasonably understood by the audience as a statement of fact or an exercise in political theater."

"That's somewhat dangerous, isn't it," responded Sotomayor, noting that she thought it was the government's position that there are no circumstances in which calculated and false factual speech has value.

Yes, Verrilli said, that is the government's position. It is also the Supreme Court's position, expressed repeatedly in its opinions, he maintained.

At that suggestion, Justice Anthony Kennedy almost levitated out of his chair.

"I simply can't find that in our cases," he said. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity."

Verrilli responded by trying to narrow the reach of the language in the Stolen Valor Act. The law, he argued, regulates "a very narrowly drawn and specific category of calculated factual falsehood, a verifiably false claim that an individual has won a military honor, and that's information that is ... uniquely within the knowledge of the individual speaker."

Still, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, "Where do you stop?"

Could Congress make it a crime for a person to falsely claim that he graduated from high school?

Verrilli conceded that Congress, or more likely state governments, could make it a crime to lie about having graduated from high school.

Justice Kennedy, however, was clearly in search of some narrower category of false speech that could be outlawed. "You can argue that this is something like a trademark, a medal in which the government and armed forces have a particular interest, and we could carve out a narrow exception for that," he said. "But just to say that ... there is no value to false speech, I simply cannot agree."

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the military medals law is limited to statements a person makes about himself.

Verrilli said it is, but then Alito asked why the government chose to draw the line there. "Suppose the statute also made it a crime to represent falsely that ... a spouse or a child was a medal recipient?"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broadened the question further. Could Congress criminalize other false statements, such as denying that the Holocaust occurred?

Verrilli replied that that kind of statement would be protected under the First Amendment because "it's so bound up with matters of ideological controversy." He said that the Holocaust example was different from this case, which involves, with "pinpoint accuracy, a specific verifiable claim about yourself having won a medal."

Justice Elena Kagan noted that quite a few states have laws on the books that make it a crime for political candidates to lie during a political campaign. But Verrilli said those laws too would likely be unconstitutional because they would risk chilling speech.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that, "Even in the commercial context we allow a decent amount of lying, don't we? ... It's calling puffing."

"What about lying about extramarital affairs?" asked Kagan. After all, she observed, the government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family.

Verrilli acknowledged the hypothetical presented "a hard case."

"The trouble is," interjected Justice Stephen Breyer, that we "can think of 10,000 instances that meet your criteria" for laws that could criminalize everyday lies.

"[T]he core of the First Amendment," observed Justice Sotomayor, is to protect even offensive speech." In this case, she contended, "we don't think less of the medal ... we're offended" by the lie. "So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?"

"I'm not minimizing it," Sotomayor added. "I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

At that, Solicitor General Verrilli piped up. "As the father of a 20-year-old daughter, so do I."

But this law involves weighty symbols of courage and valor, Verrilli said. These medals "are a big deal. You get one for doing something very important, after a lot of scrutiny. And for the government to ... stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers."

In that case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered, did the military ask Congress to enact the military medals law?

No, Verrilli replied. It did not.

Following Verrilli to the podium was the lawyer for Alvarez, public defender Jonathan Libby.

The first question came from Chief Justice Roberts: What is the First Amendment value in a pure lie?

Libby answered that people often make things up about themselves, such as when Samuel Clemens created Mark Twain, fabricating much material about his own biography.

Roberts dismissed that example, saying Twain lied for "literary" purposes.

Justice Alito persisted: "Do you really think that there is a ... First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself?"

When Libby floundered, Justice Breyer interjected by providing an example of a lie that had value: "Obvious example ... are you hiding Jews in the cellar? No." The example was a reference to people who hid Jews from German storm troopers during World War II.

But even some of the justices who voiced concerns about the government's argument still seemed reluctant to strike down the law outright.

Justice Kennedy opined, "It's a matter of common sense that ... [the false claim to a medal] demeans the medal."

Justice Kagan questioned whether the Stolen Valor Act could affect other forms of speech. "The reason we protect some false statements ... is to protect truthful speech," she observed. So, "how is it that this statute will chill any truthful speech?"

Defense lawyer Libby conceded that he could not think of a way the Stolen Valor Act would in fact chill speech.

A surprised Kagan replied, "Boy ... that's a big concession, Mr. Libby."

Still, Libby insisted that in order to justify a law like this one, there would have to be an immediate targeted harm that is inflicted, or there would have to be some sort of personal gain from the lie.

How much harm, asked Justice Alito. Suppose the lie built up the liar so much that he got a date with a rich potential spouse. Would that be enough harm?

I certainly would not think that is a significant "thing of value," Libby responded.

Alito, with a wry smile: "Some people might have a different opinion."

 

[aggie08 21505]

44 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Fox News does this thing where they say something reasonable for a minute and then go right back to spewing dangerous nonsense 24/7.  This is one of those times. 

Yep, that was 100% mandated by their lawyers. "Put a seemingly honest and sincere 60 second PSA on the record, then go back to being irresponsible, dangerous shit heels. Give us something to send to the judges when the lawsuits come."

[TwiceHorn 31496]

13 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It sparked a memory and I had to go back looking for it, but I wonder if it concerns the idea that people are being harmed. Fatality is a concrete injury I would think, and that reminded me of this article/interview on NPR. Five minute read, from 2012. Whether it is a civil matter or a criminal one, perhaps it is as Hugo says and they're just trying to cover all the bases. Also, @TwiceHorn has the Constitutional expertise, so hopefully will weigh in on the discussion.

Is A Lie Just Free Speech, Or Is It A Crime?

Rest behind spoiler. It is specifically related to the Stolen Valor Act, but the debate regarding a falsehood was what I found interesting. Free speech and all that.

  Hide contents

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the subject of lying on Wednesday.

Specifically at issue was the constitutionality of a 2006 law that makes it a crime to lie about having received a military medal. But the questions posed by the justices ranged far beyond that — from advertising puffery to dating lies.

At the center of the case is Xavier Alvarez, a former California county water board member who is an undisputed liar. Among his lies is that he played professional hockey, served in the Marines and rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis. None of those lies was illegal.

But when he claimed to have won the "Congressional Medal of Honor," that lie was a violation of the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime to make false claims about receiving military medals.

Alvarez appealed his conviction and won. A federal appeals court struck down the law as a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The government appealed to the Supreme Court, where Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Wednesday told the justices that the law regulates only a narrowly drawn category of calculated falsehoods, and that the "pinpointed" pure lies targeted by the statute are not speech protected by the First Amendment.

But Verrilli soon faced a barrage of questions about when Congress can make it a crime to tell a lie that does not defraud or defame.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor began by asking whether, under this law, the government could have prosecuted a Vietnam War protester for holding up a sign that said, "I won a Purple Heart — for killing babies," when the protester had not won the medal.

Verrilli answered that "it would depend" whether that expression was "reasonably understood by the audience as a statement of fact or an exercise in political theater."

"That's somewhat dangerous, isn't it," responded Sotomayor, noting that she thought it was the government's position that there are no circumstances in which calculated and false factual speech has value.

Yes, Verrilli said, that is the government's position. It is also the Supreme Court's position, expressed repeatedly in its opinions, he maintained.

At that suggestion, Justice Anthony Kennedy almost levitated out of his chair.

"I simply can't find that in our cases," he said. "I think it's a sweeping proposition to say that there's no value to falsity."

Verrilli responded by trying to narrow the reach of the language in the Stolen Valor Act. The law, he argued, regulates "a very narrowly drawn and specific category of calculated factual falsehood, a verifiably false claim that an individual has won a military honor, and that's information that is ... uniquely within the knowledge of the individual speaker."

Still, Chief Justice John Roberts wondered, "Where do you stop?"

Could Congress make it a crime for a person to falsely claim that he graduated from high school?

Verrilli conceded that Congress, or more likely state governments, could make it a crime to lie about having graduated from high school.

Justice Kennedy, however, was clearly in search of some narrower category of false speech that could be outlawed. "You can argue that this is something like a trademark, a medal in which the government and armed forces have a particular interest, and we could carve out a narrow exception for that," he said. "But just to say that ... there is no value to false speech, I simply cannot agree."

Justice Samuel Alito asked whether the military medals law is limited to statements a person makes about himself.

Verrilli said it is, but then Alito asked why the government chose to draw the line there. "Suppose the statute also made it a crime to represent falsely that ... a spouse or a child was a medal recipient?"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg broadened the question further. Could Congress criminalize other false statements, such as denying that the Holocaust occurred?

Verrilli replied that that kind of statement would be protected under the First Amendment because "it's so bound up with matters of ideological controversy." He said that the Holocaust example was different from this case, which involves, with "pinpoint accuracy, a specific verifiable claim about yourself having won a medal."

Justice Elena Kagan noted that quite a few states have laws on the books that make it a crime for political candidates to lie during a political campaign. But Verrilli said those laws too would likely be unconstitutional because they would risk chilling speech.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that, "Even in the commercial context we allow a decent amount of lying, don't we? ... It's calling puffing."

"What about lying about extramarital affairs?" asked Kagan. After all, she observed, the government has a strong interest in the sanctity of the family.

Verrilli acknowledged the hypothetical presented "a hard case."

"The trouble is," interjected Justice Stephen Breyer, that we "can think of 10,000 instances that meet your criteria" for laws that could criminalize everyday lies.

"[T]he core of the First Amendment," observed Justice Sotomayor, is to protect even offensive speech." In this case, she contended, "we don't think less of the medal ... we're offended" by the lie. "So outside of the emotional reaction, where's the harm?"

"I'm not minimizing it," Sotomayor added. "I take offense when someone I'm dating makes a claim that's not true."

At that, Solicitor General Verrilli piped up. "As the father of a 20-year-old daughter, so do I."

But this law involves weighty symbols of courage and valor, Verrilli said. These medals "are a big deal. You get one for doing something very important, after a lot of scrutiny. And for the government to ... stand idly by when one charlatan after another makes a false claim to have won the medal does debase the value of the medal in the eyes of the soldiers."

In that case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wondered, did the military ask Congress to enact the military medals law?

No, Verrilli replied. It did not.

Following Verrilli to the podium was the lawyer for Alvarez, public defender Jonathan Libby.

The first question came from Chief Justice Roberts: What is the First Amendment value in a pure lie?

Libby answered that people often make things up about themselves, such as when Samuel Clemens created Mark Twain, fabricating much material about his own biography.

Roberts dismissed that example, saying Twain lied for "literary" purposes.

Justice Alito persisted: "Do you really think that there is a ... First Amendment value in a bald-faced lie about a purely factual statement that a person makes about himself?"

When Libby floundered, Justice Breyer interjected by providing an example of a lie that had value: "Obvious example ... are you hiding Jews in the cellar? No." The example was a reference to people who hid Jews from German storm troopers during World War II.

But even some of the justices who voiced concerns about the government's argument still seemed reluctant to strike down the law outright.

Justice Kennedy opined, "It's a matter of common sense that ... [the false claim to a medal] demeans the medal."

Justice Kagan questioned whether the Stolen Valor Act could affect other forms of speech. "The reason we protect some false statements ... is to protect truthful speech," she observed. So, "how is it that this statute will chill any truthful speech?"

Defense lawyer Libby conceded that he could not think of a way the Stolen Valor Act would in fact chill speech.

A surprised Kagan replied, "Boy ... that's a big concession, Mr. Libby."

Still, Libby insisted that in order to justify a law like this one, there would have to be an immediate targeted harm that is inflicted, or there would have to be some sort of personal gain from the lie.

How much harm, asked Justice Alito. Suppose the lie built up the liar so much that he got a date with a rich potential spouse. Would that be enough harm?

I certainly would not think that is a significant "thing of value," Libby responded.

Alito, with a wry smile: "Some people might have a different opinion."

 

Actually, no I don't really claim any expertise in constitutional law.  I can tell you in broad strokes how things work and sometimes predict outcomes.

But in a 6-3 decision, with "nazis" Scalia, Alito, and Thomas dissenting, the Stolen Valor Act was held unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment.  Thus extending its protection to the most scurrilous of lies.  There is a bit of a "sliding scale," that might permit something short of criminal liability for false speech.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, no I don't really claim any expertise in constitutional law.  I can tell you in broad strokes how things work and sometimes predict outcomes.

But in a 6-3 decision, with "nazis" Scalia, Alito, and Thomas dissenting, the Stolen Valor Act was held unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment.  Thus extending its protection to the most scurrilous of lies.  There is a bit of a "sliding scale," that might permit something short of criminal liability for false speech.

Sorry, there are a lot of attorneys on the site, and I may have confused you with someone else. It does seem to be, in the matters of public health that lying or misrepresentation should have a consequence when brought by injured parties, though. Isn't part of the government to promote the general welfare (Constitution)? What happens when that comes up against free speech and private entities?

[TwiceHorn 31496]

2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Sorry, there are a lot of attorneys on the site, and I may have confused you with someone else. It does seem to be, in the matters of public health that lying or misrepresentation should have a consequence when brought by injured parties, though. Isn't part of the government to promote the general welfare (Constitution)? What happens when that comes up against free speech and private entities?

Oh I bloviate on things regularly.  I try not to be utterly full of shit, but sometimes it happens.

Well, clearly we have fraud and false pretense crimes that have survived First Amendment scrutiny.  When there is direct personal harm, whether physical or financial, that seems to take lies out of the protection of the First.

In the Alvarez/Stolen Valor case, the harm was only "dignitary" or abstract and that was a factor in the ruling.

And, of course, civil actions generally speaking, don't implicate the First Amendment as they lack the requisite state action.  So  defamation and civil fraud suits (lying in commercial transactions) aren't curtailed (although the public figure/actual malice standard is a First Amendment limitation on defamation).

[Eastwood 4394]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, no I don't really claim any expertise in constitutional law.  I can tell you in broad strokes how things work and sometimes predict outcomes.

But in a 6-3 decision, with "nazis" Scalia, Alito, and Thomas dissenting, the Stolen Valor Act was held unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment.  Thus extending its protection to the most scurrilous of lies.  There is a bit of a "sliding scale," that might permit something short of criminal liability for false speech.

I'm anxious to see if "inciting others to imminent lawless action" gets tested after everything that happened on 1/6. There have been bar exam questions in the past that have had facts patterns extremely close to the speeches on 1/6 that didn't confer First Amendment protections on the speaker.

As far as what may have spooked the Fox News lawyers, the freedom of the press allows Fox News and the like to publish matters of public concern. It is very broad, as even the Pentagon Papers were determined to be protected, and that contained a few defense secrets. However, I would think that ever since Fox News issued that legal defense that Tucker Carlson is an entertainment program and not a news program (cite: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye ), then I would think that Tucker, Hannity, and the like could actually be classified as commercial speech as it is speech on the behalf of a company with the intent to earn profit. Commercial speech is not afforded First Amendment protections if it is false, misleading, or deceptive.

And even if it isn't commercial speech, a couple of well-placed subpoenas could reveal that Fox News is knowingly falsifying the news that they put out there. Possibly even with malice. With Murdoch's deep pockets, Fox News will always have a "don't like it? Sue me" approach to civil claims regarding their content, but the US government has deeper pockets. If Fox News is pulling back, it's because their lawyers are worried that they are risking the loss of First Amendment protections, not civil suits. And Tucker knows that Fox News will gladly push Tucker and whoever else out to sea and let the sharks have them just to spare Fox News even one red cent.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Eastwood

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, Eastwood said:

I'm anxious to see if "inciting others to imminent lawless action" gets tested after everything that happened on 1/6. There have been bar exam questions in the past that have had facts patterns extremely close to the speeches on 1/6 that didn't confer First Amendment protections on the speaker.

As far as what may have spooked the Fox News lawyers, the freedom of the press allows Fox News and the like to publish matters of public concern. It is very broad, as even the Pentagon Papers were determined to be protected, and that contained a few defense secrets. However, I would think that ever since Fox News issued that legal defense that Tucker Carlson is an entertainment program and not a news program (cite: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye ), then I would think that Tucker, Hannity, and the like could actually be classified as commercial speech as it is speech on the behalf of a company with the intent to earn profit. Commercial speech is not afforded First Amendment protections if it is false, misleading, or deceptive.

And even if it isn't commercial speech, a couple of well-placed subpoenas could reveal that Fox News is knowingly falsifying the news that they put out there. Possibly even with malice. With Murdoch's deep pockets, Fox News will always have a "don't like it? Sue me" approach to civil claims regarding their content, but the US government has deeper pockets. If Fox News is pulling back, it's because their lawyers are worried that they are risking the loss of First Amendment protections, not civil suits. And Tucker knows that Fox News will gladly push Tucker and whoever else out to see and let the sharks have them just to spare Fox News even one red cent.

This might be what's happening, but if so, their lawyers are morons. There's absolutely no way in hell this SCOTUS would hold that anything Fox says isn't protected speech. Tucker could advocate that his viewers murder their neighbors right this instant and they'd be fine with it. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This might be what's happening, but if so, their lawyers are morons. There's absolutely no way in hell this SCOTUS would hold that anything Fox says isn't protected speech. Tucker could advocate that his viewers murder their neighbors right this instant and they'd be fine with it. 

I don't watch Fox/Tucker but if he dons a cheerleader outfit and yells, "Fuck Vaccines! Fuck Your Neighbors! Fuck Me!" I would watch that. He's never really gotten over high school, so maybe it would give him some closure.

[Eastwood 4394]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

This might be what's happening, but if so, their lawyers are morons. There's absolutely no way in hell this SCOTUS would hold that anything Fox says isn't protected speech. Tucker could advocate that his viewers murder their neighbors right this instant and they'd be fine with it. 

Maybe, but this current brand of SCOTUS has already shown that, outside of Kavanaugh, they will not be in lock-step with the GOP. Amy Coney Barrett may have been appointed by Trump, but she is still a Con Law legal scholar that is more likely than not to stick to First Amendment principals and precedents. And by the time the case even gets to SCOTUS, the court may look different. A conservative judge might keel over, the Court might be expanded, or any combination of the two that makes Fox News vulnerable. I know that a lot of the Vaudeville slapstick lawyers that have been getting dunked on by courts over the election challenges have really made it seem like the legal profession is one big "fuck it, let's sue and who cares if we lose" party, but I would be willing to bet that Fox News has some legit Con Law attorneys that are willing to be risk averse when the times call for it.

[bolverk 29685]

What Fox News has been doing up to this point is like the opposite of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire. It's kind of hard for me to get my head around, but if shouting a false alarm can get people killed and is therefore unprotected speech, why can't yelling "There's no fire!" in a burning, crowded theater also be considered dangerous and unprotected speech?

[Chuckie Finster 22700]

What Fox News has been doing up to this point is like the opposite of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire. It's kind of hard for me to get my head around, but if shouting a false alarm can get people killed and is therefore unprotected speech, why can't yelling "There's no fire!" in a burning, crowded theater also be considered dangerous and unprotected speech?

[Born to Run 6569]

Fox News does this thing where they say something reasonable for a minute and then go right back to spewing dangerous nonsense 24/7.  This is one of those times. 

Yeah I remember reasonable, measured, somewhat honest daytime coverage during the Bart Kavanaugh hearings.
Until they got their talking points in order. Then it was back to the disgusting normal by nightfall.

[TwiceHorn 31496]

13 hours ago, bolverk said:

This Thursday, my family is hosting a memorial service for my Fox News loving father. I thought about it some this weekend and asked my mom to talk with both the funeral home as well as the church where we'll be having a luncheon. I asked her please to put up signs and make some available for the ignorant assess, because I don't want his service to be a super spreader event amongst her social group, of which my 80-year-old mom told me that about half of her friends refuse to get the shot.

She doesn't understand it, and I told her it was probably because they all watch Fox News and are listening to Tucker Carlson for healthcare advice. She answered in a defiant "he never questioned the virus!" tone, but admitted that her friends have said they could never believe a word that came out of Fauci's mouth. I could only shake my head and ask that masks are made available, because the irony of people dying from catching a virus that my stubborn-headed dad's funeral would be too much.

Right now, in my home county, only 52% over the age of 65 are fully vaccinated, as well as only 25% of the entire population.

Condolences.  

[TwiceHorn 31496]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

What Fox News has been doing up to this point is like the opposite of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when there's no fire. It's kind of hard for me to get my head around, but if shouting a false alarm can get people killed and is therefore unprotected speech, why can't yelling "There's no fire!" in a burning, crowded theater also be considered dangerous and unprotected speech?

It's probably worth mentioning that the "fire in a crowded theater" thing has never been the law.

It was written by O. W. Holmes in Schenk v. United States, which considered the conviction of a WWI draft protestor for circulating anti-war leaflets in the vicinity of recruiting stations in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, which is a kissing cousin of the sedition act.

Holmes and the court were not considering a case of fire yelled in a crowded theater, so his verbal meandering on that subject is of little legal value.  It is what law dogs call "obiter dictum" or dicta.

Schenck is regarded as a Supreme Court low point along with Dred Scott, Korematsu and others.

It was probably overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which created the "imminent lawless action" test, which means not only must the speech be unlawful, but it must advocate unlawful acts by others, and imminent (as opposed to remote or speculative) lawless acts at that.  And even "imminent lawless action" is a bit of dictum, because they overturned a conviction under an Ohio statute that prohibited "advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."  So the Brandenburg court wasn't considering imminent lawless action, either.

So all of this shit is about as clear as mud.  But you can hardly go wrong betting that the First Amendment protects whatever distasteful speech you are considering.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

4 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Yep, that was 100% mandated by their lawyers. "Put a seemingly honest and sincere 60 second PSA on the record, then go back to being irresponsible, dangerous shit heels. Give us something to send to the judges when the lawsuits come."

Lawyers?

Or accountants?

Because Hannity and Tucker, you can kinda tell when the lawyers put a damper on things - they chafe at the lawyer stuff.

But this, they are practically pulling out the pom-poms, which makes me think their accountants (or FNC's financial folks) sat them down and explained what could happen to the economy.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

Just because cases are on the rise, we’re still nowhere near where we were at the height of the pandemic. But anything that spurs the Fox News talking heads into promoting vaccinations is a good thing regardless of their motivation. The problem is that so much disinformation has already been sown that there are a lot of people who are going to refuse to get vaccinated under any circumstances. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's probably worth mentioning that the "fire in a crowded theater" thing has never been the law.

It was written by O. W. Holmes in Schenk v. United States, which considered the conviction of a WWI draft protestor for circulating anti-war leaflets in the vicinity of recruiting stations in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, which is a kissing cousin of the sedition act.

Holmes and the court were not considering a case of fire yelled in a crowded theater, so his verbal meandering on that subject is of little legal value.  It is what law dogs call "obiter dictum" or dicta.

Schenck is regarded as a Supreme Court low point along with Dred Scott, Korematsu and others.

It was probably overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which created the "imminent lawless action" test, which means not only must the speech be unlawful, but it must advocate unlawful acts by others, and imminent (as opposed to remote or speculative) lawless acts at that.  And even "imminent lawless action" is a bit of dictum, because they overturned a conviction under an Ohio statute that prohibited "advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform."  So the Brandenburg court wasn't considering imminent lawless action, either.

So all of this shit is about as clear as mud.  But you can hardly go wrong betting that the First Amendment protects whatever distasteful speech you are considering.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Just because cases are on the rise, we’re still nowhere near where we were at the height of the pandemic. But anything that spurs the Fox News talking heads into promoting vaccinations is a good thing regardless of their motivation. The problem is that so much disinformation has already been sown that there are a lot of people who are going to refuse to get vaccinated under any circumstances. 

With around 50% of the nation fully vaxxed, that does make sense.

[Neonmoon 38129]

I wonder if the Fox News employee, the head booker that died of covid in March, I wonder if his family is suing 

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

14 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I wonder if the Fox News employee, the head booker that died of covid in March, I wonder if his family is suing 

Didn’t Trump pass a law protecting employers from liability if an employee gets sick at the workplace? I thought he did that after ordering all the meat packers back to work. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5114]

Trump was in the executive branch, where no laws are passed.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Trump was in the executive branch, where no laws are passed.

Semantics. You know what I mean. Or maybe you don’t. They’re signed into law there and the executive can tell his party in Congress what laws he wants passed. Like tax cuts that favor the wealthy, and him personally. Like how Biden wants an infrastructure bill and so the Democrats in Congress are trying to work out a bipartisan bill that he can sign into law. I’d say that counts as passing a law. Maybe Trump could’ve used an Executive Order. My memory is fuzzy. That’s why I asked the question. Do you know the answer or would you rather waste time on trivial minutiae?

[Js1 85412]

40 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Didn’t Trump pass a law protecting employers from liability if an employee gets sick at the workplace? I thought he did that after ordering all the meat packers back to work. 

I think you're thinking of the 2nd COVID relief package in December 2020 where the GOP torpedoed the liability stuff where Democrats wanted stronger protections for workers. 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

23 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Do you know the answer or would you rather waste time on trivial minutiae?

I believe the term is "excruciating minutiae".

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I think you're thinking of the 2nd COVID relief package in December 2020 where the GOP torpedoed the liability stuff where Democrats wanted stronger protections for workers. 

So it never came to pass? I wasn’t sure but I know Trump wanted it. I thought I remembered hearing of workers in meat plants being forced to go back to work and wouldn’t be able to collect unemployment benefits if they refused. And couldn’t do anything if they got sick, and since a fair number of them are undocumented immigrants they’d risk deportation if they made any fuss. 

[TwiceHorn 31496]

 

6 hours ago, Eastwood said:

I'm anxious to see if "inciting others to imminent lawless action" gets tested after everything that happened on 1/6. There have been bar exam questions in the past that have had facts patterns extremely close to the speeches on 1/6 that didn't confer First Amendment protections on the speaker.

As far as what may have spooked the Fox News lawyers, the freedom of the press allows Fox News and the like to publish matters of public concern. It is very broad, as even the Pentagon Papers were determined to be protected, and that contained a few defense secrets. However, I would think that ever since Fox News issued that legal defense that Tucker Carlson is an entertainment program and not a news program (cite: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye ), then I would think that Tucker, Hannity, and the like could actually be classified as commercial speech as it is speech on the behalf of a company with the intent to earn profit. Commercial speech is not afforded First Amendment protections if it is false, misleading, or deceptive.

And even if it isn't commercial speech, a couple of well-placed subpoenas could reveal that Fox News is knowingly falsifying the news that they put out there. Possibly even with malice. With Murdoch's deep pockets, Fox News will always have a "don't like it? Sue me" approach to civil claims regarding their content, but the US government has deeper pockets. If Fox News is pulling back, it's because their lawyers are worried that they are risking the loss of First Amendment protections, not civil suits. And Tucker knows that Fox News will gladly push Tucker and whoever else out to sea and let the sharks have them just to spare Fox News even one red cent.

I'm not sure it will be for one primary reason.  There doesn't seem to be a federal criminal law on the books that uses that standard or something similar.

The closest, I believe is the 18 USC 2384, which requires a conspiracy among two or more, to actually take action to overthrow the government, and some other things less dramatic.  It is clearly the descendant of the Espionage Act of 1917, and the Sedition Act of 1918, which are both dimly viewed by civil libertarians, as is Schenck.  These are the laws under which Eugene Debs was convicted and imprisoned, incidentally.  Oddly, while Holmes upheld the Espionage Act in Schenk, he later dissented in a decision upholding the Sedition Act.

I think it could pretty easily be used against some 1/6 rioters, but doubts about its constitutionality prevent its use.

There may be some state laws that come closer to the imminent lawless action line, but they wouldn't seem to be implicated.

Edited July 20, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29192]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I try not to be utterly full of shit, but sometimes it happens.

new surly motto?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Tom 2959]

it's too little, too late.  People are already too far gone.

Even if Fox were to suddenly start reporting responsibly on the virus and vaccines and they continue to tell people to get vaccinated, it's too late.  Their viewers aren't going to suddenly take it as true.  They're going to do what they did after Fox called Arizona for Biden or any other time Fox has tried reporting something straight -- they're going to complain Fox is turning liberal and start watching Newsmax or OAN more.  Fox will see that ratings dip, panic, and give Carlson and Hannity the green light to ramp up the crazy again.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

it's too little, too late.  People are already too far gone.

Even if Fox were to suddenly start reporting responsibly on the virus and vaccines and they continue to tell people to get vaccinated, it's too late.  Their viewers aren't going to suddenly take it as true.  They're going to do what they did after Fox called Arizona for Biden or any other time Fox has tried reporting something straight -- they're going to complain Fox is turning liberal and start watching Newsmax or OAN more.  Fox will see that ratings dip, panic, and give Carlson and Hannity the green light to ramp up the crazy again.

Oh well.

[atomheartbevo 89730]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

it's too little, too late.  People are already too far gone.

Even if Fox were to suddenly start reporting responsibly on the virus and vaccines and they continue to tell people to get vaccinated, it's too late.  Their viewers aren't going to suddenly take it as true.  They're going to do what they did after Fox called Arizona for Biden or any other time Fox has tried reporting something straight -- they're going to complain Fox is turning liberal and start watching Newsmax or OAN more.  Fox will see that ratings dip, panic, and give Carlson and Hannity the green light to ramp up the crazy again.

Mitch McConnell was using his weekly press conference or whatever to tout the benefits of getting vaccinated.

This whole thing is really fucking weird - are the politicians seeing stuff we aren't?   I mean, the Delta shit is a mean motherfucker, no doubt about it, but all of the sudden a bunch of people on the right are spooked.

Makes me wonder if it's a polling thing, and the Rs are polling poorly over it (as they should be).

[William Wallace 106]

No CNN, MSNBC threads?

One has to watch all and come to a conclusion. They all have a "Narrative".

It is sad, there isn't a non biased Channel now.  One has to watch multiple sources or read multiple sources to get news.

Most media has a narrative now, and one has to read a lot from different sources to get unbiased reporting now, sad.

What do people use as an unbiased source?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

I've been reading this.  Might lean Right, but I feel I get most relevant news here, and can research from there.

 

 

[safe sex 11735]

Get out of here with that false equivalence bullshit. 

[Underdog 28711]

Everyone knows to get reliable news one only has to read The National Enquirer. 

[William Wallace 106]

8 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Everyone knows to get reliable news one only has to read The National Enquirer. 

It seems like it is mostly Celebrity news?

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

I read the Daily Bugle or the Daily Planet for my news sources but they might lean left.
 Whose sock is that with the both sides crap?

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

57 minutes ago, William Wallace said:

No CNN, MSNBC threads?

One has to watch all and come to a conclusion. They all have a "Narrative".

It is sad, there isn't a non biased Channel now.  One has to watch multiple sources or read multiple sources to get news.

Most media has a narrative now, and one has to read a lot from different sources to get unbiased reporting now, sad.

What do people use as an unbiased source?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

I've been reading this.  Might lean Right, but I feel I get most relevant news here, and can research from there.

 

 

The Daily Mail as an unbiased source?

Wait, this is GRHorn's sock, right?

[William Wallace 106]

2 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I read the Daily Bugle or the Daily Planet for my news sources but they might lean left.
 Whose sock is that with the both sides crap?

 

Oh, lol I sent a Fuck you emoji, new, I thought that was a thumbs up.  I will check those out, thanks!

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

5 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

The Daily Mail as an unbiased source?

Wait, this is GRHorn's sock, right?

Definitely a sock.  GR, Chrispy, maybe that Donkey dude.  Just asking questions, dumb questions but questions nonetheless.

[William Wallace 106]

What evers.  Have you actually read Daily Mail, or been told it is Right/celeb gossio?

I scroll through the celeb news, but I never get the stories I read on CNN or Fox.

 

[TXSG8R 3362]

1 hour ago, William Wallace said:

No CNN, MSNBC threads?

One has to watch all and come to a conclusion. They all have a "Narrative".

It is sad, there isn't a non biased Channel now.  One has to watch multiple sources or read multiple sources to get news.

Most media has a narrative now, and one has to read a lot from different sources to get unbiased reporting now, sad.

What do people use as an unbiased source?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ushome/index.html

I've been reading this.  Might lean Right, but I feel I get most relevant news here, and can research from there.

 

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
 

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

35 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I read the Daily Bugle or the Daily Planet for my news sources but they might lean left.
 Whose sock is that with the both sides crap?

 

Lol with the neg on this. Will be interesting to see how long this troll lasts. 

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

25 minutes ago, William Wallace said:

It seems like it is mostly Celebrity news?

Hardly. Celebrity gossip rarely tethered to the truth but also stories about alien babies and other pulp fiction. Donald Trump used to appear on the cover often back in the 80’s and 90’s. I never read that rag because I’m not an idiot. But the frequency of seeing Trump on there definitely contributed to my impression of him being a cartoonish buffoon. (Nothing has changed since then.) It wasn’t until more recently that I learned that the publisher of the Enquirer was his friend and he welcomed the exposure to simpletons and bored housewives who bought the tabloid in the checkout lane of their grocery store. That’s telling.

Rupert Murdoch is a tabloid publisher as well and Fox News is basically a video form of tabloid “journalism.” Sensationalistic and rarely tethered to the truth.