Brian Kemper

Don’t let the 2024 Election make you forget a core political truth: when Trump is in power, people hate him and his enablers.

His second term’s abuses have only made that truth more incandescent.

Do not despair.

We will win.

"Sorry, wrong picture"

Damn. This is beautiful and heartbreaking.

Leading American companies — including Palantir, Deloitte, and private prison giant GEO Group — raked in over $22B from ICE and CBP contracts last year.

Do not forget who is profiting from cruelty and human suffering.

The arrest of Don Lemon is textbook fascism—a brazen attempt to silence reporting on a criminal regime. Stand up for Don, because our rights stand and fall with those of courageous journalists throughout this country.

"Because they'll happily slit your throat but will be apologizing as they do so."

What you don't understand is that it's going to be really, really, really tall.

Plus, we know that the drafters of 1A wanted the amendment to stop the gov't from regulating the media for lies or "propaganda."

B/c the newspapers then (some owned by Founders) were as partisan and filled with lies as the media is now.

And 1A was ratified to stop the gov't from regulating that.

the authoritarian gov't in 1984 have a "Ministry of Truth" to spread gov't propaganda and punish anyone speaking opposition to it.

I remembered one more piece of proof the FCC didn't regulate the truth by broadcast stations with the Doctrine. B/c they refused to do so:

bsky.app/profile/liza...

those type of claims.

The Nazis did it by calling anti-Nazi newspapers "the Lying Press." The Soviet Union did it against "dissents" and "Enemies of the State."

Russia is doing it now punishing people for the lie that the Ukraine invasion is a war.

It's why Orwell had ...

penalize/stop speech that is critical of the gov't under the guise that the speech is "dangerous," "unpatriotic," a "lie" or "fake news."

History proves this right as every authoritarian gov't ever has had and used power over speech and the media to quash gov't criticism on ...

protected by 1A unless they fall into long-standing and narrow 1A exceptions like defamation.

The reason is because, while a lying and unethical press is dangerous, the greater danger, the one that 1A was ratified to stop, is a corrupt gov't using powers over speech and the media to ....

Having the majority (I assume you mean of Congress or the FCC) doesn't matter.

A) The FCC never required that there was "truth in the news." As we have told you, the Doctrine didn't require it.

B) Per SCOTUS's decision (backed by liberal Justices) in US v. Alvarez, lies are ...

It's funny because he claimed that he will look things up to see if something is a lie or not.

bsky.app/profile/noah...

The FCC could never apply the Doctrine to any entity it doesn't regulate. And the FCC has never had the authority to regulate cable channels.

Congress has never given it to the FCC nor could it for the reasons I have demonstrated.

And it's what the various journalism organizations argued when they petitioned the FCC to repeal the Doctrine.

A) The Doctrine didn't prohibit lies. Nor could it apply to Fox News.

B) The reason it was killed was because the factual predicate for the Doctrine (scarcity of radiowaves leading to scarcity of info sources) was no longer valid.

Which SCOTUS foresaw could happen when they reviewed it in 1969.

He's trying to whittle away at it.

The courts have stopped him a number of times when he/his admin have taken official actions.

Reagan couldn't order the FCC to repeal the Doctrine given the equal split between Dems and Republicans at that time.

The FCC is supposed to an independent body (although that hasn't stopped it from acting in a partisan way from time to time).

Finally, you probably don't realize but any decision by the FCC to repeal a policy or take other actions must be made a majority vote of the 5 FCC chairman that can be appointed.

The Doctrine was repealed in 1987 in a unanimous vote (4-0), with two of the votes being Democrat picks.

Further, several parts of the Doctrine were not repealed in 1987, including the personal attack rule. In 2000, the DC District ordered the FCC to repeal it as the factual predicate for SCOTUS's rationale was no longer valid.

It wasn't just conservatives that wanted the Doctrine repealed.

The journalism industry wanted it gone too, because the Doctrine had been abused by both the Kennedy and Nixon administrations.

opposing viewpoints and for how long. Radio stations could offer call in shows that permitted people to call with any opinion they had.

Television stations could set aside time for such an opinion at midnight or provide a point/counterpoint show on Sunday mornings and that would satisfy it.

Hell, the Equal Time Act was never repealed and remains in effect.

And it doesn't apply to cable channels or any other medium outlets other than over the air broadcast stations.

I'll also note that with the Doctrine, the FCC gave the stations discretion as to how and when to air the ...

No, because the Doctrine did not prohibit lies or regulate news reporting. It only required broadcast stations to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.

As the FCC admitted (and SCOTUS noted), if it wasn't for the scarcity of radiowave frequencies, it would have never applied it.

You've also made the assumption that Reagan killed it "for Murdoch."

That's simply not true.

The FCC doesn't regulate the content or media outlets in any other medium.

Every time, a gov't has attempted to apply requirements similar to the Doctrine to any other medium, SCOTUS has struck it down as a violation of 1A.

Shit, the FCC doesn't license or regulate other media outlets in any way

It cannot apply to cable channels, nor any medium other than over the air broadcasting.

The ONLY reason that it was permitted under 1A to apply to over the air broadcasting is to address a "unique" defect with that medium: the scarcity of radiowave frequencies.

bsky.app/profile/bwke...

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK

Popehat's alter-alter identity

@kenwhite.bsky.social