https://imgur.com/gallery/aBSbPH6Capital rioters lawyer is claiming he’s not responsible because his client watched too much Fox News.Hannity Insanity defense.Not even making this up.
Twenty-three years ago I responded to a fatal shooting of a grader operator on a remote road in my jurisdiction. It was a totally senseless murder. The culprit was caught and put on trial. It came out that he was attempting to make his way to Washington, D.C. in order to assassinate Bill Clinton. Yes, he was nuts. It was unclear why he was where he was at the time of the murder. Shot the grader operator multiple times with a .22 rifle; took a while to kill the poor man. An article in the local newspaper quoted his father as saying that his son had been a good boy, but he had listened to too much Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy.Ironically, right after the murder was reported I encountered other county road workers who said they were sure the shooter had been some 'environmentalist' and that they knew this was bound to happen.
So, if some clever lawyer can prove to a judge's or jury's satisfaction that Fox news made his client insane/not responsible for his actions, and other insurrectionists adopt the same defense, can Fox's broadcast license be revoked for making its viewers crazy enough to be a danger to themselves and others? In all seriousness, what would it take to get Fox's broadcasting license revoked? Clearly, spreading misinformation about vaccines and masks during a pandemic isn't sufficient, nor is amplifying lies about the election. What is sufficient cause?regards,Kris
In all seriousness, what would it take to get Fox's broadcasting license revoked? Fox News doesn't have a broadcasting license. It's a cable network.Albaby
Since Fox News is on cable, I don't think they need a license.
Hannity Insanity defense.I like this phrase. We need one for Tucker Carlson too. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see beyond the obvious rhyme with "Tucker". I suppose anyone who watches him is likely to become a Tucker sucker. . .
ges is already one of your Favorite Fools.proton
We need one for Tucker Carlson too. Unfortunately, it is difficult to see beyond the obvious rhyme with "Tucker".Would you settle for a catch-all? FDS - Fox Derangement Syndrome, or perhaps FNDS (for Fox News Derangement Syndrome). Applies equally well to the habitual viewers and the brodcasters!
Fox News doesn't have a broadcasting license. It's a cable network.Thanks, I was afraid it had to be something like that. So there's really no set of standards or boundary for what a cable network can spew? We need to change that --- I'd suggest that any programming calling itself "news" would have to adhere to certain standards (i.e. stay tethered to reality). Otherwise, you must call yourself "entertainment" and run a disclaimer (something like, the statements uttered by our entertainment staff are fictional and not intended to be taken as factual).If we can have warnings on silica packs in pill bottles saying "do not eat", we can warn people about what they're watching (just like we do with show having violent scenes or explicit sexual scenes).regards,Kris
So there's really no set of standards or boundary for what a cable network can spew? We need to change that --- I'd suggest that any programming calling itself "news" would have to adhere to certain standards (i.e. stay tethered to reality). That would almost certainly run afoul of the First Amendment. The government typically isn't allowed to regulate the content of speech, and while there are exceptions (requiring warning labels) those exceptions certainly would not apply to a cable television channel. Generally speaking, you're allowed to say whatever you want, whether it's "tethered to reality" or not, outside of certain very well-established exceptions such as slander or defamation or fraud. Nor do we allow the government to set up a "truth commission" or similar body to decide what speech is sufficiently true for people to say. With respect to commercial speech, the government uses the 'fraud' exception to regulate claims about products or services - but the ability to do that fades very quickly when you start moving into speech about issues of public policy or events of the day, and especially political speech. As one federal court put it in striking down an Ohio truth in campaigning law:Lies have no place in the political arena and serve no purpose other than to undermine the integrity of the democratic process. The problem is that, at times, there is no clear way to determine whether a political statement is a lie or the truth. What is certain, however, is that we do not want the Government (i.e., the Ohio Elections Commission) deciding what is political truth — for fear that the Government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide. And thus today the Court must decide whether Ohio's political false-statements laws are the least restrictive means of ensuring fair elections. The short answer is no.https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20140912b64Albaby
In all seriousness, what would it take to get Fox's broadcasting license revoked?Fox News doesn't have a broadcasting license. It's a cable network.It's TV. Whether it's broadcast through the air or cable, it's TV. A distinction without a difference that needs to be addressed by the Fed."Find TV Providers That Offer FOX News and Watch Live Breaking News & Insightful Opinions. Stay Informed with FOX News Channel. Click To Learn How to Watch Now."https://www.foxnews.com/gowatch?gclid=CjwKCAjwkN6EBhBNEiwADV...
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |