Do you think the Biden administration should shut down Fox News? (poll)

[Wednesdays]

This has been brought up on other threads today.

120 votes, 5 passes | Time left: Time expired
	Yes. Fox News spreads lies and is a danger to democracy.
	18 (15%)
	No. That would be a violation of the First Amendment.
	98 (82%)
	Other, or no opinion.
	4 (3%)
	5 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Silent Type]

1. It's a big No for me. I don't watch it except when Colbert shows some funny chit from FOX.

White wing rubes have a right to watch what they want, and we can detest them too.

[Ocelot II]

2. Funny how authoritarian attitudes rear their ugly heads

when they favor one’s own side.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. Funny, Or Sad?

We couldn't agree on this more. 100% of the same mind.

[whathehell]

10. Funny how First Amendment Absolutists

fail to realize realize that the First Amendment is not absolute.

[Ocelot II]

11. It's hardly 1A absolutism to oppose a government shutdown of an entire TV network

on ideological grounds. Yes, there are exceptions to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech - obscenity (time, place and manner restrictions), and speech that is both “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” per Brandenburg v. Ohio, and Virginia v. Black, “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” There's also defamation and fraud. Fox was sued successfully for defamation, but none of these exceptions apply to shutting down an entire network.

Some future administration might be inclined to take MSNBC off the air for ideological reasons.

[whathehell]

15. Perhaps, but that may be why some chose "other"

rather than make a rigidly binary choice.
Lawsuits have been brought against Fox for deliberately lying while positioning themselves as a "News" organization. Fox weaseled its way out of it by claiming they were NOT news but "entertainment".
How that ruling managed to hold, without mandating a name change to something reflecting their own self description, I don't know.

I don't believe "news" organizations should be able to describe themselves as such while deliberately indulging in a pattern of lies.

[onenote]

19. A suggestion: Don't cite debunked claims about Fox News when arguing against Fox News.

No, Fox has never argued in litigation that they aren't a news organization.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19048811

[whathehell]

87. "Fox has never argued in litigation that they

they are not a news organization"?

Not in those exact words, perhaps, but
their lawyers have claimed that their lies are just "entertainment" and should not be believed.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

The issue, obviously, is that the lies are presented as truth using the 'Fox News' network rubric.

[onenote]

98. They argued that, consistent with a long line of precedent, libel law is not applicable toopinion/commentary

They didn't argue that Fox News in general is not factual. They distinguished, as have the courts for many many years, their news programming from their commentary/opinion programming.

[whathehell]

127. They conceded that Tucker Carlson,

a long time mainstay of Fox News, wasn't necessarily factual.

[onenote]

128. Not everything on Fox News is "news". Just as not everything in a newspaper is "news."

There are opinion and commentary pages in newspapers. They still get to call their publications "newspapers."

[ForgedCrank]

45. The law is

"rigid and binary" in this sense.
And besides that, all we have to do is not watch it. I'm not into dictating what others are allowed to say or hear, and I most certainly don't want government doing it.

[whathehell]

69. The law is

Interpreted..It's why we have lawyers.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

71. And so far, thank the lucky stars, the SC has ruled in favor of the 1A. nt

[tritsofme]

72. It doesn't mean we can pretend the First Amendment allows the government to ban opposition outlets they don't like.

[ForgedCrank]

82. The rule

has been tested quite well.
The people who wrote The Constitution were thinking about people like this very specifically.
Good luck using the government to shut down a press organization or to make someone stop saying things we may not like or agree with.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

83. +100. nt

[whathehell]

90. Lol..Misinterpret much?

First of all, the "rule" of the First Amendment is not absolute, and is open to testing as new applications arise.

Secondly, I neither said, nor implied that I favored "using the government to shut down a press organization to make someone stop saying things we might not like or agree with". The issue with Fox doesn't concern what is "liked" or "agreed" upon, it concerns FACTS and lies. Again, there are lawful restraints on speech, and they're not just about fires and crowded theaters. False advertising is prohibited, and characterizing demonstrable lies as factual "news" fits that description.

[ForgedCrank]

97. Speaking of

"misinterpreting much".
Funny how so many people hear words that I never said or even alluded to. Example "absolute". Someone recently saw that word in one of my posts, even though there is no mention of it anywhere.
And yes, I've heard the "fire in a crowded theater" about 1 billion times since I was in 4th grade. I'm familiar with it, and that has been tested to it's limits and is well established grounds. Fox news is not yelling "fire" in a "crowded theater".
Also, The Constitution mentions nothing about "facts and lies". The real fact is that The Constitution is there to protect people who have opinions or views that are contrary to the masses or the government. Popular statements from an individual don't require protections as much by the very nature of them being popular.
Also, "false advertising" is applied to people who are selling products and making false claims regarding said product. So no, what Fox news is doing does not fall under this definition, not even vaguely. Now, if they say this stuff to law enforcement during an investigation or under oath in court, then we have a different thing to talk about. There is a thing called Tort that covers this, as we have seen demonstrated over the past several years.
And yes, when I say government shouldn't be doing that and someone argues with me about it, they have taken a contrary position to my stated opinion.

[whathehell]

125. Oh my..Where to begin?

The central point of my post is that there ARE exceptions to Protected Speech and they are NOT necessarily limited to the well known example I gave. The fact of THAT example having been "tested to its limits", doesn't mean, it's the only, or even one of the only possible exceptions. You speak of the text of Constitution and it's possible applications, as if it's a "one and done" document, but that's simply not the case..It is open to interpretation, and it's "testing", since it usually pertains to new situations in an ongoing world, continues, as it must.
In regard to Fox News, you claim that 'facts and lies' aren't mentioned in the constitution, but the Supreme Court, in several instances, has ruled that false statements are NOT protected by the Constitution.
As to Fox News being uncovered by false advertising laws because they only cover "products", you may have to expand your concept of "product" beyond things that can be packaged in cans; Fox News Programning IS a product, a media product which is sold to advertisers and distributed electronically to consumers, so yes, it can fall under that definition.










.

[whathehell]

132. No, and I didn't define it that way.

Please note that the poll offered three, rather than two options. I chose the third, "other. Allowing one or more restrictions on a network does not equate to "shutting it down".

[brooklynite]

3. Why should I reply about an impossible and unconstitutional fantasy?

And ask yourself if you're looking forward to a future Republican Governor shutting down MSNBC?

[Fiendish Thingy]

5. Silly poll. Under what authority?

“I know, I’ll make a poll about my anti-Democracy fantasy”

[Wednesdays]

17. It's not my fantasy.

I was just curious how DUers really felt, since more than once a poster asserted "DU is just as ready to trash the First Amendment as the GOP" today.

[Trueblue1968]

108. In my ... I Hate Their Guts Opinion .... I say YES. I am in arotten mood today.

[Dorian Gray]

6. How? Who would think that was a good idea?

These types of questions feel like trolling for a fight.

[betsuni]

7. Another "Why didn't/don't Democrats stop _____?" WHEN THEY CAN'T.

[tritsofme]

8. I guess the authoritarian enemies of the First Amendment will name themselves!

[elocs]

9. ""This has been brought up on other threads today." Well that's a sorry ass excuse for doing it again.

You set your bar pretty low, don't you? DUers aren't immune from making stupid suggestions, they're just self righteous about it.

[Wednesdays]

18. Indeed. nt

[ms liberty]

33. What you said in post #17 was a bit more nuanced than that:

"I was just curious how DUers really felt, since more than once a poster asserted "DU is just as ready to trash the First Amendment as the GOP" today."

What you're saying there is that another poster said we'd trash the 1A if it benefited our side, but your poll and this thread kind of proves that theory inaccurate, at least in theory amirite? Of the replies I've seen so far, most everyone is reacting pretty negatively to that idea. So shouldn't we be happy about that? I could be misunderstanding it, I have had a well-earned, big glass of wine...

[Wednesdays]

36. Have all the wine you want.

I'm fine with that.

[WarGamer]

12. Any gov't with that kind of an abuse of power would only hurt YOU next.

When people let their partisanship fly... they forget the other side of the coin.

[whathehell]

13. Maybe we could hear from those choosing "other"

to supplement some of the binary, self-righteous responses here.

[Funtatlaguy]

14. What we need is a revamping of both the FCC and the FTC.

There’s really no difference between broadcast and cable anymore.
One entity should govern all networks and stations and they should be given some teeth and governing and punishment powers.
Real guidelines for any group that says they are a News outlet should be developed and adhered to.

[onenote]

21. The FCC does regulate both cable and broadcast, but there are differences both statutory and constitutional

One could just as easily argue that the government should regulate the content of internet sites -- including this one. But the courts have long held that there are material differences between the over-the-air broadcast media, which relies on the public airwaves and subscription services, like cable and satellite which make the latter, when it comes to content, more akin to the print media.

[Doodley]

121. It's not news. Fox News admitted in court that it's not news. It's false advertising.

[onenote]

124. No they didn't. You're repeating a lie that simply won't go away.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/sep/10/facebook-posts/facebook-post-claims-fox-admits-they-lie-have-righ/

see also: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-switch/

If Fox News has been held to the right to lie, why did they settle a libel case brought by Dominion for $737 million?

My guess is that you are referring to the 2020 case out of the southern district of new york in which Fox News was sued by Karen MacDougal alleging Tucker Carlson defamed her by accusing her of extorting now-President Donald J. Trump out of approximately $150,000 in exchange for her silence about an alleged affair between McDougal and Trump. Fox argued that the suit was dismissed on two grounds: first, that the statements at issue were rhetorical hyperbole made in the context of a commentary and opinion program, not factual "news" program assertions and thus could not be defamatory under a long line of precedent and second, that the plaintiff had failed to establish "actual malice", a prerequisite for a defamation case against a public figure. The case was focused solely on Carlson's program, which is not a news program but is an opinion commentary program. The same reasoning would apply to, for example, Rachel Maddow's program, which is an opinion and commentary program.

Every newspaper in the country refers to itself directly or indirectly as a purveyor of news. And every one of them also runs commentary and opinion pieces. Should newspapers be barred from calling themselves "news"papers? Of course not.

[Doodley]

129. I never stated they admitted they lie. They stated in court that they are an entertainment channel.

[Elessar Zappa]

16. Absolutely not.

And Biden wouldn’t try because he respects the constitution.

[mvd]

20. Bringing back some kind of fairness doctrine would hurt them the most

Best way IMO.

[onenote]

23. Do you remember Alan Colmes?

He was Fox News' house "liberal" -- and his presence did nothing at all to make Fox News a more balanced source of information. Yet, his presence is all that the Fairness Doctrine would have required had it ever applied to Fox News.

Why should cable-originated content be subject to a fairness doctrine requirement, but not internet-originated content?

[mvd]

34. I do

I agree that he was a token and was allowed to get run over. But I don’t know if just shutting them down is feasible. Plus, the fairness doctrine could have modifications.

[Zeitghost]

116. It still wouldn't apply to cable TV

And if it did, it would apply to DU, YouTube and the internet. Which would be a total disaster.

[Tribetime]

22. No but they should get sued for false stories until they're broke

Alex Jones style

[MustLoveBeagles]

26. I'm on board with that

[EllieBC]

24. That's such a tankie thing.

I love how everybody’s all for democracy until their people are in charge and then they’re all about the authoritarianism. Because what could possibly go wrong?

[GoneOffShore]

74. And you get a 'rec' for using 'Tankie'! Now waiting for someone to ask what it means.

[EllieBC]

120. People don't know what tankies are?!?

The term predates the internet but it has a renaissance thanks to the early 2000s internet.

[MustLoveBeagles]

25. No

I remember all the pissing and moaning by the media when President Obama merely didn't recognize Fox as a credible news source. I can only imagine the meltdown that would occur if Biden were to do this. And what would stop a right leaning administration from doing the same to CNN and MSNBC? Lets not go down that road.

[chouchou]

27. I'd try to shut them down. They are liken to disgusting human garbage and that's how I'd treat them.

They don't deserve any law or this reality. I'd push them as a virus that must be destroyed.

[tritsofme]

30. First Amendment be damned? What a terrifying post.

[chouchou]

37. I stand by what I said. There are things in life that rules can go fuck themselves.

First Amendment law(S) are for a civil society..not monsters.

[tritsofme]

38. It always amazes me that some folks oppose Trump, but seem to want their own version.

Thankfully the First Amendment protects us all from these types of folks.

I prefer the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

[Polybius]

41. So Trump can shut down DU too then?

Oh wait...

[chouchou]

44. The question was: "Do you think the Biden administration should..etc"

With all due respect, the answer to your question would be No.
DemocraticUnderground tries to make the world a better place.
Fox News and Alex Jones and..etc..tries to destroy the thoughts that binds all of us together.

[onenote]

55. If the goal is to "make the world a better place", assuming there could be agreement on how to do that,

why stop at banning Fox News? Why not ban any speech that would not serve that goal, as defined by those in power? Why not ban the Republican Party and be a one-party nation? Why not lock up anyone who espouses a view that doesn't, in the view of the powers that be, doesn't bind all of us together? Irony alert -- banning one set of widely held viewpoints is an interesting way to "bind all of us together", unless of course by "bind" you mean "forcefully require".

After all, if some rules should just "fuck themselves," why not go big and have thought police. Y'know, like authoritarian states try to have.

[chouchou]

60. Have you ever listened to Fox News for hours on end? I have. (Forced to as trapped on job)

You give Fox News/Alex Jones the reality of "A different view? With respect? PL-ease.
They make up lies constant and consistently, day after day.
You give examples that are way off the scale. ...and then you apply those examples to myself. Not True.
I would never ban or hurt a person from having a different view on society, as long as their viewpoints are NOT just pulled trash and lies from their asses. ...with the goal of destroying other people. That's the key.
This forum has rules and those rules are pretty damn fair.
Let me start posting like Fox News or Alex jones and see how long I'll be around.
"Donald Trump today gave FREE money to all citizens today." (By running up the God-Damn deficit...that will cause services to fail)
.."And ..Our senile so-called Leader/President fell off of his bicycle today..Har..har"
"Some people say that having universal Health care would bankrupt our nation within 3 years!!!"
That last sentence icame from You-know-who. Jones.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. So, in your mind, this is a reason for the Govt. to shut down an opposition channel

because YOU don't like what they say?
Well, alrighty then, will you support a repig admin shutting down DU, MSNBC, CNN because they don't like what they have to say about a Pres.,?

I can't believe the bullshit I'm reading here about Govt control of the media, no matter what one may think of them.

It always amazes me that liberals/progressives want to shut down a channel that doesn't align with their beliefs but don't take into consideration that the same laws will apply to them under a repig admin.

[Polybius]

84. So who gets to decide what's good and bad?

It doesn't work like that.

[Captain Zero]

123. Trump is who. If he gets elected.

But I'm sure we have a go-to plan in that eventuality.

[hueymahl]

77. That is the exact line of reasoning

Used by despots around the world.

[yardwork]

92. It really is a terrifying post.

[DemocratInPa]

59. Perfect response from someone who doesn't...

understand the constitution..

So funny how people on here were mad when Trump wanted to do shit like this, but would be ok with Biden doing it.

[chouchou]

61. I disagree with you.

[DemocratInPa]

62. I don't care if you disagree..

President has no authority to shut down a TV station..

[chouchou]

64. That TV station has done more damage to this country than just about anything else.

They purposely spew propaganda. ...for money. If Fox were a country, we'd block their transmitters.

[Polybius]

86. And a Republican administration will argue that MSNBC and DU have done more damage to this country

Damage is in the eye of the beholder.

[chouchou]

89. They would be wrong. Political scientists have proven that Fox News has damaged the Democratic party...through lying.

MSNBC was (as they put it) Nill.

[onenote]

100. Funny how Nixon and Reagan were elected, twice, before there was Fox News, and while there was a fairness doctrine.

You give more credit to Fox News than it deserves and in so doing ignore other factors that create division in this country.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. So what?

That's the beauty of the 1A, you can disagree, but what are the chances of you disagreeing under a Been A Dick Donald admin without severe repercussions?

Be careful what you wish for, it'll come back to bite you in the ass.

[chouchou]

67. No..When it comes to Fox News, I'd kick their ass back to Australia...if I could.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

68. That's fine, that's your opinion,

but I thank my lucky stars, for now, that people like you that want to redefine the 1A, aren't in charge.

[tritsofme]

73. Exactly, the First Amendment exists precisely to protect us all from the authoritarian dreams of folks like this.

[hueymahl]

76. Thank goddess you are not in power

Disgusting anti-free speech, anti-democratic stance.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

79. Wow!!!

One of the few times I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[hueymahl]

80. LOL

Love you MCE. Have really enjoyed our sparring over the last few months!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

81. Love you too,

and I've thoroughly enjoyed our back and forth.

[IdiotsforPalin]

28. Just keep suing

Maybe when Fox is broke they’ll realize that they’re nothing more than the Talking Heads for the Fat Fuq

[MustLoveBeagles]

29. This

Hold them accountable

[moondust]

31. Slippery slope.

Imagine the kind of fabricated totalitarian shutdowns the GQP would undertake if they ever got the chance. It would look like North Korea.

[brush]

32. Give FOX a chance first to stop the lies and winger propaganda...

six months to a year...regular monitoring done by the FCC?

[Ferrets are Cool]

35. Fuck no...can't believe this is even being discussed.

[Polybius]

39. The 17% who voted yes are in the wrong group

Communist Underground is that way.

[Doodley]

42. Inappropriate.

[Polybius]

43. No

The 17% are.

[tritsofme]

115. It is un-American to oppose the First Amendment, whether you are Donald Trump, or anyone else.

[Doodley]

40. Something needs to be done before it's too late, or maybe it is too late already.

[GoodRaisin]

46. Freedom of speech 1st Amendment includes lying.

People need to be smart enough not to fall for the lies. The only thing that’s going to shut down Fox News and other RW propaganda networks is enough people turning off their networks. But, there are too many stupid people who provide a market for lies.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

47. No

Authoritarianism from the left is just as unacceptable as it would be from the right.

[Bucky]

48. Of course not. But bring back the fairness doctrine

Yes that also means that Lawrence O'Donnell's show (por ejemplo) would be 45% people disputing what he just said. Good. Fox and Friends would become the biggest educational institutions in the country.

[themaguffin]

49. It should come back, but it wouldn't apply to this.

[Bucky]

51. Claro

Pero... un hombre puede soñar

[themaguffin]

58. what?

[onenote]

52. That isn't how the FD worked.

All it required was that the station present contrasting views regarding those matters of public concern. Stations made the choice as to who and how to present contrasting views and did not require equal time for all different viewpoints. Even in its original form, it almost certainly would not survive First Amendment scrutiny today.

[Bucky]

54. Of course not.

But as long as we're fantasizing about authoritarian takeovers of the media, why not dream big?

[TheProle]

75. FD doesn't apply to cable

[DemocratInPa]

50. This is silly.

President dont have this kind of power, but I would like to hear how the OP thinks he can do this??

Secondly, if he tried it end badly including a November loss unfortunately. Alot of Biden middle of the road voters would stay home.

Thirdly, republicans get back power and sadly there going get some kind of power soon or at some point it will only lead to them doing something back in response.

[Lancero]

53. If you can justify forcing TikTok to shut down, you can justify forcing Fox to shut down.

[hueymahl]

78. Exactly. Both are dead wrong positions.

[Kaleva]

96. TikToc can avoid being shutdown without changing content

A few here want Fox to be shut down if it doesn't change content.

"Lawmakers from both parties — as well as law enforcement and intelligence officials — have long expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over data on the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. The worry stems from a set of Chinese national security laws that compel organizations to assist with intelligence gathering - which ByteDance would likely be subject to – and other far-reaching ways the country’s authoritarian government exercises control."

https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-divestment-ban-what-you-need-to-know-5e1ff786e89da10a1b799241ae025406

[Lancero]

103. Remember the days when we called this ban attempt for what it was?

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/dont-ban-tiktok-and-wechat

Wasn't that long ago that we'd call this what is was. Racism. Racism that many here have now, sadly, embraced.

[Kaleva]

110. That article was about abuse of presidential power

Where Trump was to unilaterally ban , without Congressional approval, Tictok.

In today's case, it was Congress, with wide bipartisan support, that passed the law and which Biden signed. Also TicTok would not be banned if China sold the app to a non-Chinese entity. Which I believe is something Trump wasn't going to allow but I could be mistaken on that part

[Flatrat]

56. No, but they shouldnt carry the label "news"

Truth in advertising.

Fox entertainment is mislabeled.

[BlueKota]

57. No

But too bad there isn't a rule that would allow the government to make them, and all the cable "news" networks, drop the word news from their names. It should be FPOC- Fox Political Opinion Channel, CPO, MSPO.

Also be made to run a spoken disclaimer that the content of these programs are the opinions of the hosts and guests and may or may not be based on facts! People might still not listen or care. Also they should already be smart enough to figure that out on their own, but we are where we are because obviously some are not.

Programs designated news should just report on major events that happen, without editorial comment.

That way they still get to say what they want, but people who would like to stay up on current events, but don't want to listen to the spin have a source for that.

[sarisataka]

66. The only way to protect our freedoms

is to eliminate our freedoms.

The answer to such a dictatorial move is "hell no". The posts saying laws shouldn't apply to those we disapprove of are absolutely chilling.

[H2O Man]

70. silly

[DBoon]

85. the government should not shut down news outlets

The government should help counter factual mus-statements and promote media that presents truthful perspectives. Promoting diversity in media, and non-profit media that follows journalistic standards would help.

Private non-governmental actions can also reduce the damage caused by Fox and other right-wing outlets

[kimbutgar]

88. Reinstate the fairness doctrine and enforce it with fines.

[TheProle]

91. Please see:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219062903

[kimbutgar]

93. Too bad it can't be updated to include cable tv news today.

Thank you for the link!

[onenote]

102. If it could be "updated" to include cable news, it could be updated to include internet content. Like DU.

[Zeitghost]

117. And that's how you get a fairness doctrine

Applied to DU…

[Patton French]

94. And how does the Biden Administration do this? NT

[TheBlackAdder]

95. I would like to see News used in names when 100% of programming is News and not 10%, 90% Commentary.

But that's just me. Nothing enforceable. I just don't like how they present themselves as news when they are not.

[onenote]

99. Is Rachel Maddow's show news, commentary, or a combination? How should it be labeled?

[TheBlackAdder]

106. She's a hybrid, but she's on Microsoft National Broadcasting Company.

[RussBLib]

101. No. And what about OAN and Newsmax?

.. .and any number of lying rightwing radio punks.

Better to either work with them to improve, or maybe as another poster said, sue the fuck out of them until they're broke.

https://russblib.blogspot.com/?m=1

[pwb]

104. No, but the cable providers don't have to carry any stations.

Maybe a move on them for honesty will work. But they are owned by the wealth class so never mind.

[emulatorloo]

105. No. Consumers should drive fox out of business. And companies/individuals who they have lied

about should sue them into oblivion.

[TexasDem69]

107. Absolutely 100% opposed to this sort of despotism

And it would guarantee Trump’s reelection of Biden tried. This is nonsense, unconstitutional and the worst idea I’ve seen on DU in a while.

[Iggo]

111. Dumb question. No President should ever "shut down" a news organization.

Ever.

[pansypoo53219]

112. restore the fairness doctrine.

[Music Man]

113. Shutting down a news organization?

What the hell is this question?

Bring back the Fairness Doctrine instead.

[Silent3]

114. What I would like, and it might require amending the Constitution (that is to say, might be pratically impossible)...

...is for blatant, deliberate spreading of misinformation and disinformation to be legally actionable the same way defamation is not treated as protected speech.

One has to be careful, of course, not to treat true, honest differences of opinion, even differences of opinion arising out of hate and stupidity, as unprotected speech.

To a certain extent, some protection against misinformation and disinformation exists, but only when a particular party can claim defamation, as in the Dominion win over Fox News.

We should further, however, also treat things like COVID disinformation the same way, when something as important as people's health and life, not only mere reputation, are at stake.

And although this could get very tricky when moving into the political realm of speech, at a certain point, when people spread lies about elections being rigged at the risk of destabilizing our democracy, for example, anyone who can be proved to not merely be voicing a poorly-formed opinion, but knowingly lying to produce false distrust, should be restrained and held accountable.

I used to believe that even deliberate lies should be protected free speech, with the only remedy being other people using their free speech to argue for the truth against those lies. I've come to realize that disinformation and propaganda techniques are far too pernicious to go unchecked, and their effects too powerful to be answered by mere rational counterarguments.

[Zeitghost]

118. People are free to be wrong

As they should be,

[Silent3]

119. I'm not arguing against the right to be wrong

There are cases, however, where you can prove someone is willfully lying for destructive purposes. That's not just "being wrong". In the case of doing that to damage a person's (or a business's) reputation, maliciously lying, and even reckless disregard for truth (that is, perhaps believing something is true, but exercising no due diligence to validate that truth) has legal consequences.

I'm only advocating extending that same reasoning to other incidences of malicious lying and reckless disregard that have serious consequences, not just reputational consequences.

[DFW]

122. A president can't do that, so why ask?

Nixon wanted to eliminate CBS news (Dan Rather) in 1969.

[Gore1FL]

126. How does that work? nt

[jmowreader]

131. That would set a bad precedent...

If Biden shut down Fox News, the next GOP president would shut down CNN and MSNBC.

[Blue Full Moon]

133. Not News

It is a propaganda machine. It is mostly editorial comments and not actually news. I think it's funny that Trump doesn't like them now. Even the commenters there are having to admit Trump is just wrong, but in the end Fox is not news.