Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

MarineCombatEngineer

(14,774 posts)

9. The FD would not apply to the internet,satellite or cable genres, they don't operate on

Reply to Initech (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 19, 2024, 06:15 PM

Jun 2024

public airways and the FCC has zero content authority over those genres and there's no FCC license to revoke as there is no license required to operate, as it should be.
And, like you said, it wouldn't do any good anyway, not in todays 24/7 social media.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

18 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should the government regulate "News" [View all] sarisataka Jun 2024 OP

The government should enforce anti-trust laws and break up media ownership consolidation. sop Jun 2024 #1

I think the consolidation of news services sarisataka Jun 2024 #5

Wish we could bring back the Fairness Doctrine! Initech Jun 2024 #2

the Fairness Doctrine also would not impact cable networks Celerity Jun 2024 #6

The FD would not apply to the internet,satellite or cable genres, they don't operate on MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #9

It didn't that much good when it was in effect. Nixon was elected, twice. Reagan was elected, twice. onenote Jun 2024 #17

Pass - "The government", because of our "two-party system", includes Republicans. They can not be trusted to define ck4829 Jun 2024 #3

I had not considered sarisataka Jun 2024 #4

It's not, and that's good Dave says Jun 2024 #7

No, all of these "solutions" are antithetical to the First Amendment. tritsofme Jun 2024 #8

That has been my argument in another thread, MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #11

People often do not consider sarisataka Jun 2024 #13

Oh hell no, MarineCombatEngineer Jun 2024 #10

No. William769 Jun 2024 #12

Well that all depends. EllieBC Jun 2024 #14

My thought exactly Tree Lady Jun 2024 #15

But who decides what is false information? TheFarseer Jun 2024 #16

"regulatory standards of truthfulness' is a chilling, Putinesque, PRC kind of concept. Maru Kitteh Jun 2024 #18