• WraithGear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s hard to justify going after media orgs. Especially the government justifying going after the media. The freedom of speech points to stopping government action in this exact case. This gives the perfect vector for corporate take overs. And now my media diet consists of comedians.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      there is precedence for the government ensuring balanced discourse on public airwaves with the fairness doctrine. there is only a finite amount of spectrum to be licensed out so the government needs to be able to ensure the broadcasters who do get licenses are providing more than a single biased point of view.

      • WraithGear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sorta? It’s complicated, and it’s important to note that it’s been repealed in 1987. And even in its hay day, its was controversial due to the government deciding what was fair, rendering free speech obsolete.

        No when the government wants to silence media, they usually turn to clerical infractions, and fines for other reasons. And other harassment behavior. Sure they may do it to stations i want gone, but it’s still scummy.