Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[Ming]

One solution... If advertisements try to mimic a "news" story, we have to label them as ADVERTISEMENTS. Maybe Fox News should be forced to run a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen... something like "This may contain lies" or "Total BS" or "If you believe this, you are brain dead"... now that would be interesting

[notyoueither]

'The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it.'"
--Chief Justice John Roberts

And other peoples have made other judgements.

I don't feel particulalry unfree due to restrictions on me telling lies under certain, specific conditions.

[Hauldren Collider]

For example, holocaust deniers...

Have you noticed that holocaust deniers are allowed to publish books and websites and newspapers and participate in every form of public discussion in the US?

[giblets]

Hey, now he's quoting someone who is not yet dead. Progress.

Unfortunately, still has yet to show he can think for himself.

Maybe his older brother will show up to make his argument for him.

[flash9286]

@Dashi:

It doesn't matter what you claim to be, no one can tell you you can't say it if you have freedom of speech. Telling lies isn't illegal. This is actually a crucial element of free speech. The government is not allowed to decide something is a lie.

(NB: Libel and slander are civil law, not criminal, and have relatively strict interpretations)

Might want to google criminal defamation of persons.

[Hauldren Collider]

As far as I know, holocaust denial is the only time this has ever come in action.

I find it fascinating HC thinks it's so important that people be told that it is factual that the holocaust did not exist and the Jews made it up for the attention, on public airwaves.

I find it fascinating that you think that my saying that no one has the right to decide WHETHER it is important that people be told/not be told something means that I personally find it important for something to be told or not told.

[Hauldren Collider]

As far as I know, holocaust denial is the only time this has ever come in action.

I find it fascinating HC thinks it's so important that people be told that it is factual that the holocaust did not exist and the Jews made it up for the attention, on public airwaves.

Since supreme court justices are in fact the ultimate authority in deciding what the constitution actually says, and that this was a majority opinion in an 8-1 decision, appeal to authority is in fact completely valid.

[notyoueither]

For example, holocaust deniers...

Other things that can get you in legal trouble with authority are false promises in employment and blatant fraud in commercial advertisments.

[Asher]

Have you noticed that holocaust deniers are allowed to publish books and websites and newspapers and participate in every form of public discussion in the US?

AFAIK they can in Canada as well, they just can't do it on broadcast television and present it as fact and not opinion.

The fact that in the US it's perfectly legal to do so on broadcast television is a problem of the US, not something to be proud of. You have a mostly ignorant populace, and the people who aren't ignorant are largely being mislead into being cronies by channels like MSNBC and Fox that mislead as part of their programming policy. This is not something to take pride in. It's a symptom that your system needs reform, and your people need a thwap to the side of the head.

[giblets]

I find it fascinating that you think that my saying that no one has the right to decide WHETHER it is important that people be told/not be told something means that I personally find it important for something to be told or not told.

You apparently think some people do have this right when dealing with what sort of medical advice can be given out.

[notyoueither]

Have you noticed that holocaust deniers are allowed to publish books and websites and newspapers and participate in every form of public discussion in the US?

Have you noticed that some people do not see this as an endorsement of the system in the US?

[DaShi]

AFAIK they can in Canada as well, they just can't do it on broadcast television and present it as fact and not opinion.

The fact that in the US it's perfectly legal to do so on broadcast television is a problem of the US, not something to be proud of. You have a mostly ignorant populace, and the people who aren't ignorant are largely being mislead into being cronies by channels like MSNBC and Fox that mislead as part of their programming policy. This is not something to take pride in. It's a symptom that your system needs reform, and your people need a thwap to the side of the head.

Nothing that a decade of two of economic depression followed by Chinese occupation won't take care of.

[Asher]

Since supreme court justices are in fact the ultimate authority in deciding what the constitution actually says, and that this was a majority opinion in an 8-1 decision, appeal to authority is in fact completely valid.

You clearly don't get it. How much more obvious do I need to make it?

I've clearly mocked Americans' reliance on the constitution instead of reason and rationality not only in this thread, but in others. You keep quoting people who interpret the constitution, or quoting the people that wrote it. You're apparently incapable of comprehending that your constitution is not infallible and what was reasonable when these guys sat down to write it centuries ago may not be the most reasonable thing now. I very much doubt they had any concept of something like Fox News ever existing.

[giblets]

Since supreme court justices are in fact the ultimate authority in deciding what the constitution actually says, and that this was a majority opinion in an 8-1 decision, appeal to authority is in fact completely valid.

I thought this thread was about Canada

[Asher]

I thought this thread was about Canada

It's a fact that the world revolves around the US. We listen very carefully to what the US Judges say with regards to their constitution. As HC has implied, our entire justice system really is based on US court precedents.