Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[Ming]

There are regulatons and penalties for false advertising.

In the US, there are really no penalities for false advertising. When caught, you are told to stop running the ad. If the situation is really bad, the FCC may ask you to run "corrective" ads... Nobody gets fined or put in jail for it.

[Asher]

Asher, selling something under false pretenses is an action.

How is broadcasting not an action if selling is?

Why the hell do you need this explained to you?

It sounds like people need to explain it to you.

Withholding broadcasting licenses to journalists you disagree with is a clear case of the chilling effect and is an obvious violation of free speech.

Now you're lying. Where do you get "disagree"?

Show me one case in Canada where a broadcaster had their license revoked because the CRTC disagreed with them. Until then, you've no case.

Teachers spending their working hours spouting their political beliefs instead of doing their jobs is not free speech, it is skiving work and that isn't protected by free speech. Jesus christ.

Who said anything about political beliefs?

Their job is to educate. A teacher can educate by teaching lies, no? This is freedom of speech. Nothing to do with politics.

EDIT: And now you're into the whole fire in a crowded theater thing, something EXPLICITLY not considered free speech by the supreme court. How far down the hole do you intend to go?

Far enough until you can figure out that there are reasonable restrictions to the freedom of speech for the sake of the public good. Knowingly misleading the public en masse to follow a particular ideology is one of those examples.

[Hauldren Collider]

If the medical advice be useless, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides.

So wait, now you're including medical malpractice? None of you know anything about law.

[Egbert]

Asher, selling something under false pretenses is an action. Actions are generally not considered speech (exceptions being things like flag burning which are clearly political in nature). Why the hell do you need this explained to you?

Withholding broadcasting licenses to journalists you disagree with is a clear case of the chilling effect and is an obvious violation of free speech. Teachers spending their working hours spouting their political beliefs instead of doing their jobs is not free speech, it is skiving work and that isn't protected by free speech. Jesus christ.

EDIT: And now you're into the whole fire in a crowded theater thing, something EXPLICITLY not considered free speech by the supreme court. How far down the hole do you intend to go?

Umh, you are giving the very distinct impression that you are spouting ideology, in a way that seems very dogmatic, and thus giving the impression that it is not possible to reason with you in respect of definitions of free speech. I think your adversaries have given up reason and are now enjoying a good laugh. Think about it.

[notyoueither]

"If this book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson

Only problem is that publishing a book is quite easy. There are a very limited number of licences for broadcast and cable news stations.

[giblets]

A recurring theme with Americans seems to be the nonsensical adherence to an idealogy to an extreme degree, even when it clearly makes no sense. You ask Americans to logically defend it, and they'll just point to a guy who died centuries ago and pretend like that's relevant.

[Egbert]

Now you're lying. Where do you get "disagree"?

Lying is a "crucial element of free spech". Refer HC's post further up.

[giblets]

So wait, now you're including medical malpractice? None of you know anything about law.

I think we should hear both sides wrt medicine.

[Hauldren Collider]

'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

[Asher]

Umh, you are giving the very distinct impression that you are spouting ideology, in a way that seems very dogmatic, and thus giving the impression that it is not possible to reason with you in respect of definitions of free speech. I think your adversaries have given up reason and are now enjoying a good laugh. Think about it.

Don't make him think. It's easier to knee-jerk and parrot ideologies than reason. Just ask Fox News.

[notyoueither]

In the US, there are really no penalities for false advertising. When caught, you are told to stop running the ad. If the situation is really bad, the FCC may ask you to run "corrective" ads... Nobody gets fined or put in jail for it.

It has to be pretty blatantly false for there to be anything other than civil consequences up here.

[Asher]

'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

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

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

[Asher]

It has to be pretty blatantly false for there to be anything other than civil consequences up here.

For example, holocaust deniers...

[Egbert]

Don't make him think. It's easier to knee-jerk and parrot ideologies than reason. Just ask Fox News.

Sorry. My bad.

[Asher]

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.