Well duh.

[www.salon.com]

"In a court filing, the media outlet denied that its opinion hosts had downplayed the severity of the pandemic, and said statements by Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Trish Regan cited in the lawsuit were protected under the First Amendment.

“The claims here are frivolous because the statements at issue are core political speech on matters of public concern,” Fox News wrote in a motion to dismiss filed Tuesday in a King County, Washington, trial court."

Good. Their fake news should be protected. Quashing freedom of speech is not going to help anything.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs
Good. Their fake news should be protected. Quashing freedom of speech is not going to help anything.

Sure... but let's label it as OPINION. They label it as "FACT'.

Quote
cbelt3

Quote
rjmacs
Good. Their fake news should be protected. Quashing freedom of speech is not going to help anything.

Sure... but let's label it as OPINION. They label it as "FACT'.

I don't care. No censorship on matters of opinion. Caveat emptor.

If they start actively lying about what the CDC is advising, such as by counterfeiting press releases, modifying official CDC documents, etc., then I think you may have a case worth prosecuting.

TV personalities will embellish and mislead. It's part of what they do, as we've sourly learned too well. If you can't do your own due diligence and check multiple sources, you can not be saved.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Agreed... the last thing we need right now is more erosion of constitutional rights!

---

Aloha, Ken


“I have developed significant attachments to several members even though I wouldn't recognize them if I sat next to one on a park bench. I'm often tempted when in an airport to walk around, hollering "The Løpe", to see if anyone other than the Homeland Security people will acknowledge me. ” - The Løpe

[www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com]

Quote

“So to me, free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad, to me that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it,” Trump told attendees. “But that’s not free speech.”

“I don’t think that the mainstream media is free speech either, because it’s so crooked, it’s so dishonest.”

Quote
rjmacs
If they start actively lying about what the CDC is advising, such as by counterfeiting press releases, modifying official CDC documents, etc., then I think you may have a case worth prosecuting.

Never happen.

Quote
Ted King
[www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com]

Quote

“So to me, free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad, to me that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it,” Trump told attendees. “But that’s not free speech.”

“I don’t think that the mainstream media is free speech either, because it’s so crooked, it’s so dishonest.”

---

I don't want to see subversion of the right to free speech. However, I welcome the lawsuits, because it puts Fox News on notice that more than just their loyal viewers are watching and there is a limit to how much they can lie.

---

I think we're in the realm of yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, which is often brought up as speech which is not protected under the first amendment because it results in harm to others. This is a little, but not much, different. The Fox News shock jocks are yelling "it's safe, you're in no danger" which is sending people into danger. This is not simply stating an opinion. It's falsifying facts that will harm people.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
davester
I think we're in the realm of yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, which is often brought up as speech which is not protected under the first amendment because it results in harm to others. This is a little, but not much, different. The Fox News shock jocks are yelling "it's safe, you're in no danger" which is sending people into danger. This is not simply stating an opinion. It's falsifying facts that will harm people.

I understand your argument, and I agree with the sentiment. American jurisprudence can't get where you want it to go without endangering all manner of necessary speech.

This is closer to George Wallace giving regular speeches about the supremacy of the white race and segregation to agitated, angry, mobs of white people in a state where white-perpetrated racist violence was endemic. And that was, and needed to be, protected speech.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Once trod upon it's not just slippery but a deadly slope.

If the free market of ideas can become subsumed by a tidal wave of money then the society that permitted those circumstances to occur richly deserves the outcome that results.

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
davester
I think we're in the realm of yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, which is often brought up as speech which is not protected under the first amendment because it results in harm to others. This is a little, but not much, different. The Fox News shock jocks are yelling "it's safe, you're in no danger" which is sending people into danger. This is not simply stating an opinion. It's falsifying facts that will harm people.

I understand your argument, and I agree with the sentiment. American jurisprudence can't get where you want it to go without endangering all manner of necessary speech.

This is closer to George Wallace giving regular speeches about the supremacy of the white race and segregation to agitated, angry, mobs of white people in a state where white-perpetrated racist violence was endemic. And that was, and needed to be, protected speech.

what if a group rushed out and killed a bunch of black folk right after one of these speeches? Where is the line drawn?

Quote
hal

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
davester
I think we're in the realm of yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, which is often brought up as speech which is not protected under the first amendment because it results in harm to others. This is a little, but not much, different. The Fox News shock jocks are yelling "it's safe, you're in no danger" which is sending people into danger. This is not simply stating an opinion. It's falsifying facts that will harm people.

I understand your argument, and I agree with the sentiment. American jurisprudence can't get where you want it to go without endangering all manner of necessary speech.

This is closer to George Wallace giving regular speeches about the supremacy of the white race and segregation to agitated, angry, mobs of white people in a state where white-perpetrated racist violence was endemic. And that was, and needed to be, protected speech.

what if a group rushed out and killed a bunch of black folk right after one of these speeches? Where is the line drawn?

Then you could make an arguable case for incitement to riot, which is not protected speech. But you should understand that incitement to riot is exactly that - an exhortation to commit specific violence immediately. It's substantively different from giving people misinformation and watching them go get stupidly infected with a virus.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
hal

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
davester
I think we're in the realm of yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater, which is often brought up as speech which is not protected under the first amendment because it results in harm to others. This is a little, but not much, different. The Fox News shock jocks are yelling "it's safe, you're in no danger" which is sending people into danger. This is not simply stating an opinion. It's falsifying facts that will harm people.

I understand your argument, and I agree with the sentiment. American jurisprudence can't get where you want it to go without endangering all manner of necessary speech.

This is closer to George Wallace giving regular speeches about the supremacy of the white race and segregation to agitated, angry, mobs of white people in a state where white-perpetrated racist violence was endemic. And that was, and needed to be, protected speech.

what if a group rushed out and killed a bunch of black folk right after one of these speeches? Where is the line drawn?

Then you could make an arguable case for incitement to riot, which is not protected speech. But you should understand that incitement to riot is exactly that - an exhortation to commit specific violence immediately. It's substantively different from giving people misinformation and watching them go get stupidly infected with a virus.

And that case would still need to wind it's way though the legal system, quite probably making it's way to the Supreme Court.

Regardless of my opinion on the original subject matter, IMO it's well within 1st Amendment protected speech.

It was a frivolous law suit. You can’t limit asshat speech.

The FTC’s Fairness Doctrine, once lost, paved the way for Fox News. And the FCC won’t go after anyone spouting bad advice. It’s gotta be demonstrably a lie, not merely verifiably bad advice. The line is thin, but it’s there.