On The Media: Where Do You Get Your News?

[doug rr]

I think Lenny went to school with her in Alabama ..she's a roll tider

[elliseamos]

She did well and it was entertaining to watch.

I think Lenny went to school with her in Alabama ..she's a roll tider

[96583UP]

https://www.gzeromedia.com/gzero-north/ ... n-fox-news

seems sensible to me

In the rant — about a school shooting in Nashville, where a transgender man killed three children and three adults — Carlson warned about “trans terrorism,” saying Christans should prepare to be targeted for violence by the trans movement, a “deranged and demonic ideology.”

In the United States, with its strong First Amendment protections of free speech and weak broadcast regulation, Carlson’s rant was just another salvo in the culture war. But in Canada, it could have regulatory consequences, because Carlson attacked Egale, a Canadian LGBTQ organization, saying it was lying about violence against trans people, which it wasn’t.

A week after the broadcast, Egale sent a complaint to the CRTC — the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (Canada’s version of the Federal Communications Commission) — asking that it ban Fox News.

“To position trans people in existential opposition to Christianity is an incitement of violence against trans people that is plain to any viewer,” wrote Egale.

Egale has a case. Canadian law forbids broadcasting material that “is likely to expose an individual or a group or class of individuals to hatred or contempt.” Describing trans people as “demonic” would seem to qualify.

The regulator, which is run at arm’s length from the government, has banned other channels. Last March, after Russia invaded Ukraine, the CRTC announced that RT and RT France — which are controlled by the Russian government — could no longer be carried by Canadian cable outlets.

“Foreign channels can be removed from the authorized list should their programming not be consistent with the standards to which Canadian services are held,” said Ian Scott, who was then the chairperson of the regulator.

If that is the standard the CRTC uses, it would ban Fox. No Canadian broadcaster could get away with running a rant like the one Carlson did. The CRTC routinely acts with a heavier hand than the FCC, which has been restrained ever since 1985, when Ronald Reagan repealed the fairness doctrine. In June 2022, for example, CRTC ordered Radio-Canada, the French language branch of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to apologize for even mentioning the N-word in a radio broadcast about a book important to Quebec nationalists.

Earlier this month, the CRTC agreed to consider Egale’s complaint. It opened a public consultation process that has so far collected 6,500 submissions from both people who want Fox banned to prevent it from spreading hate and Fox fans who would see a ban as an attack on freedom of expression.

[BurtReynolds]

There is nothing remotely sensible about it.

[elliseamos]

Opinions.

[BurtReynolds]

Opinions.

*Government approved opinions

[elliseamos]

I meant yours and numbersup.

[JuanHamm]

There is nothing remotely sensible about it.

Would you at least acknowledge that it's hard to balance free speech with people's willingness to shamelessly lie, and the stupidity and lack of critical thinking skills of the general public?

[BurtReynolds]

There is nothing remotely sensible about it.

Would you at least acknowledge that it's hard to balance free speech with people's willingness to shamelessly lie, and the stupidity and lack of critical thinking skills of the general public?

No, not at all. There is no balance to be had. It should be weighted entirely on the side of free speech. If you don't have faith in humanity enough to let idiots and liars speak, then you are an authoritarian.

There isn't some ideal scenario where the state protects the marginal with censorship. Get that silly idea out of your head.

[JuanHamm]

There is nothing remotely sensible about it.

Would you at least acknowledge that it's hard to balance free speech with people's willingness to shamelessly lie, and the stupidity and lack of critical thinking skills of the general public?

No, not at all. There is no balance to be had. It should be weighted entirely on the side of free speech. If you don't have faith in humanity enough to let idiots and liars speak, then you are an authoritarian.

There isn't some ideal scenario where the state protects the marginal with censorship. Get that silly idea out of your head.

Neither option seems good to me.

[BurtReynolds]

I think free speech is a great option. One of the best options ever invented.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[elliseamos]

This is about promotion, not speech.

If you want to hear what Tucker has to say, go get it yourself. He has the right to say it, I don't have to listen.

The state and its airwaves have no obligation to promote it. Nor should they decide that he can't say it. Which they're not. They're only saying they won't promote it.

Hence the company was found to have defamed another company and then he was fired.

[BurtReynolds]

Omg amos u cannot be serious.

[BurtReynolds]

"you can say anything you want just not in a newspaper, because the state owns all the printing presses. So it's not censorship because the state regulates it."

Please stfu.

[elliseamos]

I don't think the state owns all the printing presses. Some are privately held.

Seems like a false statement that tries to discredit my point, but doesn't because you're not addressing the opinion I've presented.

[Bi_3]

This is about promotion, not speech.

If you want to hear what Tucker has to say, go get it yourself. He has the right to say it, I don't have to listen.

The state and its airwaves have no obligation to promote it. Nor should they decide that he can't say it. Which they're not. They're only saying they won't promote it.

Hence the company was found to have defamed another company and then he was fired.

Not your best take

[BurtReynolds]

A better argument would be that it's foreign media and thus more subject to state regulations than domestic media, but even then, those regulations exist largely because of the possibility of espionage or foreign propaganda, which doesn't apply here. It's just language the current regime doesn't like (otherwise known as "hate speech"), which is a bullshit excuse for censorship.

I refuse to delve too deep into the laws of pretend countries that are really just vassals of the queen king of England, but this is basic liberal democracy stuff. Their laws are irrelevant. We're talking about ethics based on a western liberal framework. Don't call yourself a liberal while arguing that speech should be banned because you don't want to hear it.

I don't think the state owns all the printing presses. Some are privately held.

Oh ok, so if someone wanted to start up a newspaper with wrongthink, the government couldn't step in, essentially declare the press its property or subject to its regulatory power, and close it down, since it had a point of view that the state didn't approve of? Is the same true of tv channels? Or do they have to conform? How do these two forms of communication differ?

The argument that "they can say whatever they want, just not on tv" falls on its face immediately upon using that same argument with printing presses. Yes, preventing someone from using a printing press, or the airwaves, reasoning that they can simply shout it from the street corner (which they also can't do btw,) is absolutely censorship. Saying that it's the government's printing presses/airwaves doesn't magically mean it's not censorship. This is in fact about censorship, not promotion.

He has the right to say it, I don't have to listen.

So therefore banning it is somehow justified?! Because you don't have to listen? What!? Change the channel, mofo. How is this an argument? So if I don't want to hear something, I can have the government ban it? Were you high when you wrote that?

The state and its airwaves have no obligation to promote it.

The state does in fact have an obligation not to interfere. You needn't worry about the "rights" of the government. It isn't a unit of moral concern, unlike individuals. It has no actual rights - to life, liberty, property, speech or anything else. It doesn't have a right to a point of view, or a right to really own anything. Its existence and any "rights" it has are completely at the will of the people governed, and can be revoked any time. It's completely at the mercy of actual human beings that actually exist.

[elliseamos]

Read what I wrote again, burt. I said I don't have to listen meaning I can change the channel for myself. If providers don't want to put the channel on their slate that's their thing. If I don’t like what the provider's doing with their options for channels I'll look elsewhere for content. There are plenty of channels, papers, websites, radio stations, and people on street corners saying these lies.

They are not banned. They are being (slowly) less promoted.

[BurtReynolds]

Who are the providers here?