Please Sign this Petition for Congress to enact a law to stop the lying on Radio and Television

[louslobbs]

news. If you are as sick of all the lying as I am, please sign and pass on to your friends, thanks. I don't know how much good it will do, but we've got to keep trying.
Thanks again,
Lou


http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.change.org%2Fpetitions%2Fcongress-make-law-to-stop-lying-on-radio-and-television-news&h=VAQGzjVmdAQEtF8uCYNIRQfCKrUWirN3Dw9Y6KVYaIZsJOg

[sadbear]

1. As much as we want it, how would it be Constitutional?

The first amendment makes no exceptions for veracity of free speech. Or does it?

[RKP5637]

2. Interesting point. However, they do stop the use of foul speech on the air waves. n/t

[sadbear]

3. I guess it's worth a shot

You can define an obscenity with the Miller rule. I suppose they can figure out how to define a lie, too.

[louslobbs]

4. My real goal here was to see how many people would sign the petition. With everything going on

in the world and in this country specifically, how many people would like to see consequences for "news" programs that blatantly lie? With all the lying that happens on a daily basis, wouldn't you love to see a law with a three strikes type of penalty that doesn't allow an organization to use a word like 'news" that intimates "truth," to call themselves a "news" organization. Or are most of us just ok and complacent with all of the lying on the news and in politics since it's commonplace, and we're used to having to research online to find out the truth about things. I understand the Constitutional issues that would be raised, but isn't it funny how the Constitution is just a "piece of paper" with respect to certain issues and then an important document to uphold with respect to others? I wonder how many people will sign, just to say, we've had enough of all the lying on alleged News broadcasts and would love to see something done like in Canada.
Lou

[sabrina 1]

18. Hi lou, first, I'm not sure what Constitutional issues could be raised regarding

asking that our News Media reports the truth. While the 1st Amendment doesn't say they cannot lie, it doesn't say they can either. So I think it's a fair assumption that the Founders were not promoting a lying News Media.

I understand the Constitutional issues that would be raised, but isn't it funny how the Constitution is just a "piece of paper" with respect to certain issues and then an important document to uphold with respect to others?

It's remarkable how we are so often told, eg, that the destruction of our rights is 'Constitutional' when we are 'in a time of war'. Frankly, abiding by the Constitution when there are no challenging events taking place, is easy. Imo, the protections of the Constitution are most needed when elected officials and others, use circumstances, such as terror eg, to justify ignoring our Constitutional rights.

I would love to see a challenge to Fox's claim it can lie to the people in its news coverage, a claim they made in an appeal of a law suit they initially lost, but found a sympathetic judge on appeal, to their claim that it was okay to lie about the news.

I don't know if this has ever happened before. But maybe it's way past time to establish standards for news reporting since so much is at stake for the American people who cannot make rational decisions if their sources of information are lying to them.

Thanks for the thread, I will rec and sign the petition.

[louslobbs]

19. You mean this case? Hi Sabrina, thanks for jumping in. I can always expect a well thought out

reply from you. Thanks for responding and signing the petition.
Lou


On August 18th 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that an employee of Fox Television was wrongfully terminated by Fox when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) "a false, distorted or slanted story" about the widespread use of Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in dairy cows. The jury maintained as well, that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. The jury awarded the plaintiff a $425,000 settlement.

Fox appealed the case and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to the Plaintiff. The court held that plaintiffs threat to report the station's actions to the FCC, did not deserve protection under Florida's whistle blower statute, because Florida's whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted "law, rule, or regulation." In their narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation, it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to FOX whether or not it wants to report honestly and as all of us have seen, Fox chooses to report false, distorted and slanted stories because there is no law that says they can't.

FOX asserted the fact during their appeal, that there are no written rules against "distorting" news in the media. Fox further argued, that under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Attorney's for FOX did not dispute plaintiffs claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simpy maintained that it was their right to do so.

Most of us know that FOX Televison was formed specifically to create stories, distort facts and tell outright lies as an arm of the Republican party to help further their political agendas. FOX is, and has been from its inception, a propaganda tool for Republicans and their operatives. The case above shows, in attorney's legal arguments on behalf of FOX, that FOX knows it has a right to broadcast false stories, distort truth and legally lie and that is exactly what they do. FOX is in the simplest of terms, a Republican propaganda outlet that broadcasts the lies that the Republicans need told in order to back up their agendas and manipulate their very specific viewer base.

FOX lies, they know they lie, they were formed to spread lies and legally, they have every right to fill the airways with their lies, distortions and Republican propaganda.
Lou

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes, that is the case I was thinking about.

And I think since that ruling people have been afraid to bring the issue back before the courts.

But that was an over-ruling of the correct decision, imo. And by one Appeals Court Judge.

My question is would it be a good idea to challenge the media's claim that they have the right to lie about news, as Fox did so blatantly in that case.

I can see where they can lie about anything else under the 1st Amendment, but lying to the American people about the news seems very wrong to me.

I have no idea if it has ever been challenged legally, maybe I will do some research, but what good are protections of political speech if lies are protected? It doesn't make sense to me, but then not much does these days when it comes to the rights of citizens, which seem to be constantly under attack and then excused by even Democrats.

This should really appear on any ad for Fox or anywhere they are mentioned:

FOX asserted the fact during their appeal, that there are no written rules against "distorting" news in the media. Fox further argued, that under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Attorney's for FOX did not dispute plaintiffs claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simpy maintained that it was their right to do so.

So maybe Congress needs to fix that part 'there are no written rules against "distorting" news in the media".

The US News Media has been rated as low as around 47% on the World's News Media scale. That means that we in the US are not receiving even a minimal standard of news compared to other countries.

And since 'distorting' news is propaganda, and during the Nuremberg trials their propagandist was prosecuted, I fail to see how this can be acceptable. Maybe there are some lawyers here who could explain it?

[louslobbs]

26. I agree that the snippet you highlighted should be on any ad for Fox or anywhere they are mentioned.

Your friend,
Lou

[HughBeaumont]

63. Wow. So let me get this straight . . .

. . . in order to overturn a relative parking ticket of a settlement, Faux News actually admitted they're a corrupted and dishonest member of the Fourth Estate, essentially rendering them a farce, but since they have zero shame and a metric ton of viewers who share the same brain, they don't really CARE?



That's utterly amazing. Or not.

[onenote]

33. For convenience, I'll repeat statements made by the SCOTUS

that answer your contention about the scope of the First Amendment:

Gertz v. Robert Welch (a leading defamation law case):

Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. As James Madison pointed out in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." And punishment of error runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press. Our decisions recognize that a rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship. Allowing the media to avoid liability only by proving the truth of all injurious statements does not accord adequate protection to First Amendment liberties. As the Court stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 279: "Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred." The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters."

Miami Herald v. Tornillo in 1974: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

[sabrina 1]

35. Yes, I read that and agree for the most part. But it seems that some speech has

been outlawed when the Government feels it is against its interests to allow it. For example, The Stolen Valor Act. This makes it a crime for anyone to pretend they were awarded medals for military service.

There was a case a while ago where someone was caught lying about receiving the Medal of Honor. He was arrested and tried and convicted under that law. He appealed his case. I do not know what the resolution was.

But if pretending to be a Medal of Honor recipient is viewed as acting against the Government's interest, why would substituting news for propaganda and delivering to people under the false pretext that it IS news, not also be against the Government's (as representatives of the people) interest?

Not saying I agree with that law. But it does exist.

[onenote]

39. If is my fervent hope that the Stolen Valor Act is struck down.

We'll know in the next few months. (The case you just referred to was just argued before the SCOTUS).

Plus, the medal of honor situation is an easy case since its an objective truth. Either you did win it or you didn't. Most cases aren't that black and white but have a shade of gray to them, not only as to whether a statement is true or false in part or in its entirety but also as to whether it is statement of fact or opinion or hyperbole.

[sabrina 1]

42. You could say the same for WMDs. Either they were there or they weren't, or at least

there was some doubt about it. That didn't stop the 'news' media from scaring the shit out of the American people by claiming they were in imminent danger from them. There was no room for any doubters, all of them either discredited or fired, Ashley Banfield, Donohue, to mane but two.

[mmonk]

53. I disagree with the decision it cannot be legislated.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents standards for news. Standards do not void freedom of speech rights.

[onenote]

54. when you get on the Supreme Court you can pursue that interpretation

In the meantime your disagreement doesn't change First Amendment precedent.

[mmonk]

56. I suppose in countries where there are news broadcast standards,

they have no right or protection to free speech?

[onenote]

57. Correct. They don't have the same legal level of freedom of the press as we do here.

[mmonk]

60. Is that why Finland is number 1 in press freedom

and we are 47th? Do they have a Fox news?

[onenote]

65. I don't know if Finland has a "Fox news". Do they have a law that would prevent a "Fox News"?

[A wise Man]

62. YOU MEAN.....

LIKE..........FOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!!!!!!

[louslobbs]

5. Exactly, if I say fuck on the news, that's a no no, but if someone says gays are predisposed to

molest children.......which utterance does more damage? Hearing a swear word, or labeling a group of people something they are not for others to disparage, mock and develop a bigotry toward. You can't say fuck, but you can say that all unwed mothers breed little criminals. I just wish the lying would stop, we're bringing up generations now of young people who think it's ok to lie because they do it on the news and all of the politicians do it.......and they're supposed to be the smartest and most upstanding of citizens. Could we confuse our kids anymore?
Lou

[RKP5637]

7. Imagine if politicians were held accountable for lies! n/t

[louslobbs]

9. That would be the best thing to happen in this country if that were to occur. I agree, imagine they

had to tell the truth........like they had a Wonder Woman truth rope around them. That would be some day. I guess most people are ok with lying these days though......at least it seems that way.
Lou

[onenote]

38. Wow. Wouldn't it have been great if Alberto Gonzalez' Justice Department

could go after Democratic candidates alleging that they've lied? And have the cases heard by courts stacked with repub appointees and the Roberts' led SCOTUS. Wouldn't that have been super!!!

sarcasm smilie not needed I hope.

[RKP5637]

69. New Rule: ALL politicians must submit to truth serum when speaking in public! lol

[PavePusher]

66. I have a dream.... n/t

[louslobbs]

6. And you are seeing the real problem right here in this thread, 141 people read about a petition

to stop lying on radio and television news, putting aside any Constitutional issues, only 3 people took the time after reading to rec the thread. For those three who did, thank you, we share the view at least that there should be something done about the lying on TV and Radio. Perhaps if I had mentioned the name Limbaugh.........?
Lou

[RKP5637]

10. +1,000,000 and many more. IMO actions such as this need to occur if we as a nation are

interested in stopping this nation from going even deeper into a pit of lies, distortions and more insanity.

[louslobbs]

13. Agreed, if I just asked the question, do you think people who are in politics and who broadcast the

news should stop lying, maybe I wouldn't have got the Constitution issue coming up.....although it is valid and important, the Consitution seems to be something people can take or leave depending on the situation at hand and their beliefs therein. It's either a respected document all of the time or it's a "piece of paper," which is it? I'd like to see truth in news broadcasts and hear truth from elected officials with the power to harm with their lies.
Lou

[onenote]

8. No thanks. I'm not interested in there being a governmental "ministry of truth" in the US.

Plus, it wouldn't be constitutional. As the Supreme Court stated in Gertz v. Robert Welch (a leading defamation law case):


Although the erroneous statement of fact is not worthy of constitutional protection, it is nevertheless inevitable in free debate. As James Madison pointed out in the Report on the Virginia Resolutions of 1798: "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." And punishment of error runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press. Our decisions recognize that a rule of strict liability that compels a publisher or broadcaster to guarantee the accuracy of his factual assertions may lead to intolerable self-censorship. Allowing the media to avoid liability only by proving the truth of all injurious statements does not accord adequate protection to First Amendment liberties. As the Court stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, at 279: "Allowance of the defense of truth, with the burden of proving it on the defendant, does not mean that only false speech will be deterred." The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters."

Or as the Court stated in Miami Herald v. Tornillo in 1974: "A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

[louslobbs]

11. Without issues of Constitution or "ministries of truth" would you like to at least see people tell

the truth who report the news or have political power? I mean from a personal standpoint?
Lou

[onenote]

15. To quote the Supreme Court:

"A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated."

So, I guess the answer is that I would like to see people speak the truth. I just don't want the government deciding what is or isn't a true statement. If someone runs for office and claims that they are a war veteran and its a lie, I don't think that they should be subject to government-imposed penalties. I would hope rather, that the lie is exposed by the opposing candidate or the media.

To give an example: Congressman Weiner, a person with political power, lied. The lie was exposed. But thankfully, there was no government body around deciding it was a lie or imposing any penalties as a matter of law on him for lying.

[louslobbs]

17. Point taken. n/t

Lou

[sabrina 1]

32. I see the points you are making. But then, was the Fairness Doctrine unconstitutional?

I can imagine right-wingers claiming that anything that restricts Corporations from buying up any 'commodity' is unconstitutional.

Even people are commodities now. The Right's interpretation of Free Speech is 'how much money do you have', and since the SC ruled on Citizens United it appears to me that the Constitution is now meaningless in terms of protecting the rights of all citizens. It now only protects the rights of Wealthy Citizens and mostly Corporations.

How did this happen? Maybe because Corporations had already bought Congress?

[onenote]

36. It's constitutionality was last considered in almost 30 years ago

The court found the FD to be constitutional in 1969, focusing on the "scarcity" rationale. The court, however, did not rule out the possibility that in the future, technological developments might undermine this rationale.

Fifteen years later, in 1984, the court again hinted that technological developments might warrant a different outcome to a constitutional challenge to the FD, but stated that "We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required."

How the court would view the FD 30 years later in light of the explosion of content sources on cable, satellite, and the Internet is hard to predict.

In any event, as to suggestions that I've seen that the FD required truthful speech, the 1969 case made it clear that the FD didn't require truthful speech. Rather, the court stated that "It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.

So the question is whether, in light of the Internet, etc., the FD is necessary to "preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas." I could see the current SCOTUS concluding that its not. But its not a slam dunk case either way.

[louslobbs]

16. I have no argument with what you have stated. Thanks for the comment.

Lou

[sabrina 1]

24. Then there needs to be some standards that will raise the ratings of our media out

of the 40s which is where we are this year on the list of best and worst news media in the world. That means the American people have no real way of making good decisions. If the press is the 4th estate, then maybe something needs to be done so we don't have a propaganda machine instead of a news media.

I can see where you don't want to pass laws that could put people in legal jeopardy for making errors, or for not reporting news that someone feels they should have eg.

Maybe the best way is to demand that Congress restore, at the very least, the standards of fairness that were in place before the de-regulation that happened in the nineties making it possible for Corps to buy up the airwaves.

I have read eg, that over 90% of radio is spewing out rightwing talking points round the clock. So something needs to be done to get some balance back and it's way past time imo.

[Johnny Rico]

25. +Several Million

[louslobbs]

28. and another several million from me Sabrina

Lou

[Rosco T.]

12. Stop 'lying' on NEWS programs....

which means Fox NEWS would have to become Fox Fantasy.

[louslobbs]

14. Exactly, and that's what they should call themselves. Then they can lie all they want and everyone

will know it's just more crap coming from fantasy land.
Lou

[dogknob]

20. The media's biggest tactic for lying...

...the lie of omission...

I don't believe regulation will ever rid us of this. Denial is and always will be legal.

[louslobbs]

21. I know, I just shake my head in disbelief at how far this country has fallen, denial is an

interesting tool, and you are right it is legal and could never be regulated.
Lou

[Go Vols]

23. Ronnie Raygun

Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2012, 09:35 PM - Edit history (2)

helped kill the Fairness Doctrine that demanded news on TV and radio to be true.


The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.
...

In June 1987, Congress attempted to preempt the FCC decision and codify the Fairness Doctrine,[15] but the legislation was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Another attempt to revive the doctrine in 1991 was stopped when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

[louslobbs]

29. The Fairness Doctrine was not liked by most Republicans nor are the most "needed" regulations +1

Lou

[onenote]

31. The Fairness Doctrine did not "demand news on TV and radio to be true."

In its entirety, the FD stated that broadcast stations "shall afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of opposing views on issues of public importance."

In other words, it was not a "truth" requirement.

[sabrina 1]

34. True, but it prevented corporations from buying up the airwaves. Now there is nothing to

prevent that. Maybe that is where to start. And when something is in the public interest, why shouldn't there be some standards?

We have agencies that apply standards to food production, to medication eg. But no standards for news consumption.

[onenote]

37. The FD had nothing to do with ownership restrictions

That is a separate issue and one as to which I agree Congress and the FCC have gone too far in allowing the aggregation of control over broadcast licenses, both locally and nationally.

As for comparing news to food production or medications, I'll just point out that First Amendment doesn't talk about food or medicine. It talks about speech.

[sabrina 1]

41. The First Amendment doesn't talk about money either.

Nor does it mention Corporations as persons.

But that hasn't stopped the Right from claiming that this is what it intended. So if they can read it to suit their goals, I guess we are free to have our own interpretations.

Edited to add that I think reporting facts truthfully is more in the spirit of the First Amendment than to claim that 'money is speech'. Technically you can say that people 'speak with their money' but if the Founders had intended that Freedom of Speech was to be a right only for the wealthy, I think they would have said that. The more money buys candidates, the less freedom of speech there is for the poor and even the not-so-poor since they do not have the means to purchase it.

[Johnny Rico]

27. No thanks. Blatantly unconstitutional.

I don't know how much good it will do

None whatsoever.

[louslobbs]

30. I'll defer to Sabrina1's comment #18 in response. Thanks

Lou

[Occulus]

52. It depends entirely on how the Constitution is read.

Apparently, even among Democrats, a certain amount of Unconstitutionality is fine when it deals with things like carving exceptions from the due process requirement. If we are willing to accept that yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a valid form of free speech, then we can just as easily say that claiming all persons who are gay are child molesters (for example) is equally invalid.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I believe that such a law is already Constitutional.

[Go Vols]

40. Fox News not allowed in Canada........ because it lies!

They do get USA Fox news,but this law kept Fox from having a Canadian version.

"From the Huffington Post- By Robert F. Kennedy Jr



Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast....any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law, Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the U.S. airwaves."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/fox-news-will-not-be-moving-into-canada-after-all_b_829473.html

[sabrina 1]

43. Interesting. That would never pass here but I don't see where it will make Canadians less likely to

speak out against their government or about politics in general.

[onenote]

47. The station in question was not owned by Fox

It was referred to as being Fox-style, but it had nothing to do with Fox. Its owned by Quebecor. It was dubbed "Fox News North" because it was believed (probably with good reason) that it wanted to create a Fox-style conservative news channel. But Fox wasn't shut out of Canada because Fox wasn't the one trying to get into Canada.

Also, the channel (called Sun News) was not "banned" from getting on the Canadian airwaves. Originally, it sought a type of license from the Canadian authorities that would have given it mandatory carriage rights on cable and satellite companies operating in Canada (just as certain other "basic" channels are given). The verdict from the Canadian authorities was that the channel wasn't unique enough to warrant that sort of categorization. So, ultimately, Sun News applied for and received a lower category license that allows it to broadcast but doesn't give it mandatory carriage rights. It launched in the Spring of 2011 and is being carried by some cable and satellite providers in Canada.

Of course there is more to the story. For example, there were reports that the Harper government had put pressure on the Canadian authorities to approve the original mandatory carriage license. There also were reprots that Quebecor officials were seen meeting with Roger Ailes. However, there seems to be no evidence that Fox ever had or planned to have an ownership or management stake in the network.

I'm not trying to defend Sun News, but there is no reason for DUers to be misled about this story.

[WillowTree]

44. There's this concept called "Freedom of Speech". You really should read up on it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. That would pretty much put politicians out of business.

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[JSnuffy]

46. A few things..

1) Illegal

2) Immoral

3) Internet petitions don't do squat except maybe get you an extra season of your favorite reality show...

[Kingofalldems]

48. How is a petition to stop lying immoral?

Does this have something to do with Rush? Bet it does, you seem to like him a lot.

[JSnuffy]

50. Lemme break it down for you..

It's immoral because as much as you think you have the one and only handle on what truth is, I'm willing to bet dollars to pesos you've missed a few.

The only possible outcome of an idiotic "law" like this would be a governing body that determined what is correct and allowable and what isn't. This group would be influenced by their own prejudices, beliefs, political correctness and the issues of the day.

People who said things that were determined to be outside of the official and government sactioned statements would be fined and punished.

I guess I'm just a sucker for the first amendment and freedom of speech and thought. I'm silly that way.

Of course, that all goes out the window if you are willing to claim that you really do have the insight into the human soul to know what is right all the time. Do you? Was the plan to leave it to "someone else?"

Seriously, just a whiff of critical thinking can help you out.

[onenote]

55. Its amazing what short memories people have

The notion that anyone here would be willing to give folks like Alberto Gonzalez and John Roberts to decide whether whether a particular statement by a politician or broadcaster (and why stop there -- might as well include newspapers and Interenet blogs and sites like DU) is "true" or "false" is both astonishing and frightening.

[mmonk]

64. Ask Phil Donahue, Ashley Banfield, and others what happened

to them when they questioned the rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

[Kingofalldems]

58. That's your made up scenario

Of course I'm pretty sure your version of the truth would be whatever Rush says.

[JSnuffy]

61. Ok...

Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2012, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

"King"

Explain exactly how that law would be codified and enforced. Feel free to chunk the 1st Amendment if it makes it easier for you.

I want you to explain any other way that "law" would turn out.

Maybe we could all vote on whether or not something is true?

__________________________

Above all, I want to say Thanks for taking to the time to type out a reasoned and well thought out response. You really put in the effort to address the points and offer some deep insight of your own.

Oh, wait. No you didn't. You just ignored everything and called me a rushbot. Never mind...

[Nye Bevan]

49. Imagine someone going to prison for stating "Bush lied us into war".

We all remember the heavy innuendo regarding the "WMDs", but it is arguable that it is not quite *literally* correct that "Bush lied us into war". Say a prosecutor was able to successfully advance this argument; he could send someone to prison.

[and-justice-for-all]

51. '..enact a law to stop the lying on Radio and Television'

Is that even possible or realistic?

[cali]

59. No. No way no how not now not ever.

who decides what is and isn't a lie?

What a fucking nightmare.

[mmonk]

67. Right now, the liars are.

The right to lie as news is the right to lie for the state. Press freedom has declined in the US as it has become deregulated. There is no evidence otherwise.

[onenote]

70. How has press "freedom" declined.

If anything, it appears that your complaint is there is too much press freedom -- too much freedom to own multiple outlets, too much freedom to speak without the government reviewing the content of the speech, too much freedom to decide who speaks.

I would like to see some recovery with respect to the ownership of multiple outlets, but as far as getting the government involved in deciding what those outlets report, etc.

And by the way, by "Press Freedom" I think we're only talking about the broadcast media that has traditionally been subject to a higher level of government regulation, and not to the application of government licensing or content regulation of either traditional print media or new avenues of content distribution (such as DU).

[tritsofme]

68. So who gets to be the arbiter of what is truth and what is lie? Karl Rove?

When Republicans are in power?

A very dangerous path to go down. The first amendment is always frustrating to those that wish to stifle speech.