Six Republican AGs Try To Pretend OAN Was ‘Censored’ By DirecTV

from the traditional-conservative-values dept

Last January DirecTV finally decided to kick fantasy and conspiracy channel One America News (OAN) off of their satellite TV lineup, likely dooming the “news” channel. It’s a channel relatively few people watch, and the company simply didn’t figure the controversy to income ratio was worth it, so DirecTV simply didn’t renew OAN’s carriage agreement when the time came.

OAN, of course, quickly tried to spin itself as a victim of censorship, first by attacking a Black AT&T board member in “news” coverage that pretended DirecTV’s business decision was politically and racially motivated. And last week, the company filed a lawsuit claiming that DirecTV was leveraging its “unchecked influence” to stifle a “family-run business”:

“This is an action to redress the unchecked influence and power that Defendants have wielded in an attempt to unlawfully destroy an independent, family-run business and impede the right of American television viewers to watch the news media channels and programs of their choice.”

Trying to claim DirecTV, which itself is losing subscribers hand over fist to streaming, has “unchecked influence and power” is fairly amusing. In reality, DirecTV made a fairly boring business decision to not renew a channel very few people, despite all the sound and fury, actually watch:

Now Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has, for some bizarre reason, injected himself into the dispute. In a letter (pdf), Paxton and the GOP AGs of Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, and South Carolina demand DirecTV renew its carriage agreement with OAN, and insist the decision to kick the conspiracy channel to the curb is “clearly viewpoint discrimination and an attempt to silence conservative voices”:

“My fellow attorneys general and I strongly recommend that you reconsider your present course and renew your contract with OAN in April. Your failure to do so will not only cause you to lose millions of dollars in business, but also drive many millions of Americans to simply cancel your services outright, as President Trump and other leading figures have already called for.

I’m old enough to remember that a core GOP platform used to be that government shouldn’t involve itself in routine business decisions without exceptional cause. Yet here, six AGs took the time to take DirecTV to task simply for booting a channel from its lineup that not many people watched.

As with most modern GOP claims of this type, it’s largely performative victimization porn to keep the base angry. What the Trump GOP routinely calls “censorship” is usually just baseline levels of accountability for dumb behavior (like, say, falsely claiming in “news reports” that COVID was created in a South Carolina lab). The real goal here, as it is with the Section 230 fracas, is really to mandate that the internet and cable programming be inundated with alternative reality propaganda favorable to the GOP.

As we’ve noted previously, while AT&T originally funded and came up with the idea for OAN, the company was forced to spin DirecTV off in partnership with TPG Capital, which was likely less interested in catering to conspiratorial GOP gibberish — at least when it wasn’t making them money. Cable and broadcast executives will air anything that makes money if they can legally get away with it.

Even if this was a viewpoint-based decision by DirecTV, there’s absolutely nothing requiring that DirecTV maintain anything resembling “viewpoint neutrality.” There’s just no foundation for any complaint here. There’s nothing illegal. Again, it was a boring business decision made because the channel wasn’t making DirecTV money in ratio with the headaches (like the lawsuits over bogus claims of election fraud).

Paxton and his friends are clearly upset that the ongoing effort to create an entire alternate reality news ecosystem saw a minor setback with OAN being dumped from DirecTV, relegating the channel out of the mainstream and back into a highly competitive scrum of conspiratorial influencers and other gibberish-spewing Trump orbit hopefuls.

Of course, the Trump base will never see alternative viewpoints pointing out Paxton’s involvement here is self-serving, performative bullshit, which is the entire point of the propaganda ecosystem folks like Trump and Paxton are hoping to embolden and protect as they foist their authoritarianism on the planet.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,
Companies: directv, oan, oann

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Six Republican AGs Try To Pretend OAN Was ‘Censored’ By DirecTV”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
297 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

He also had a comment about “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” that the GOP seems to have forgotten about, given that it’s trying to inject government into everything from what books that public libraries can carry to the personal healthcare decisions of women under the guise of “helping society”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 And?

I’m not a “L”ibertarian. I don’t believe that shit. DirectTV has no First Amendment interest in removing OAN. DirectTV has 50% of a scarce market. They have put their property to the public interest and their rights are subservient to the rights of the public until such time as they remove their property from the public interest.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

They have put their property to the public interest and their rights are subservient to the rights of the public until such time as they remove their property from the public interest.

You people love to think that just because a business sells a product to the public at large, they then become some sort of “public service” such that they become a state-controlled property.

Under your theory, I should be able to go into any WalMart and just take food that I want, because “They have put their property to the public interest and their rights are subservient to the rights of the public until such time as they remove their property from the public interest.“.

I have a right to life, ie feed myself, therefore WalMart rights are subservient to my right to life.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

They have put their property to the public interest and their rights are subservient to the rights of the public

Yes or no: Do you believe the government should have the absolute legal right to compel any cable or satellite provider into carrying any channel, regardless of the size of its viewer base or the content it airs, that the owners/operators of said providers don’t want to carry? If you say “yes”, keep in mind that this belief would literally preclude any cable/satellite provider from dropping not only a “political” network, but any network.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Absolutly

We have been over this before. The answer is absolutely. Its actually the law of the land in most industries. Its only big tech that enjoys this anarcho-capitalism fantasy.

In my lightly regulated state if I want to rent a property the state supplied ‘Get to Know State Law’ is 45 @#%ing pages long!

Shut up with this ridiculous you moron. You have no life. That is obvious.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

This cancel culture is a new Phenomenon not yet legislated or adjudicated to any large degree. Give it time.

So right here, you just admitted that you are full of shit and the Texas AG does not have a right to force a private business to make a decision against its own 1st amendment right of association.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 They Don't Have A Statute

Again you are confusing law and rights. There is no statute currently on the books. The states have every legal right to enact such statutes, at the recommendation of the AG, and the AG has every legal right to enforce them.

Mike and the rest of the idiots in Silicone Valley should take this seriously lest Mike find himself in a Texas prison.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

There is no statute currently on the books. The states have every legal right to enact such statutes, at the recommendation of the AG, and the AG has every legal right to enforce them.

Gotcha! So this is just a pipe dream in your empty head that could happen, despitely having a probability of nearly zero.

Yeah, really smart.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

There is no statute currently on the books.

Then your entire fucking argument is inert.

The states have every legal right to enact such statutes, at the recommendation of the AG, and the AG has every legal right to enforce them.

And when those statutes are found unconstitutional as the result of a lawsuit filed against a state AG, guess who’s paying the tab for the state! (Hint: It isn’t the state AG.)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Don't Count Your Chicken's

Don’t count your chickens before they are hatched. Unless some people on the SCOTUS die you stand zero chance of your opinion being held. Judge Shopping Judge Hinkle in the 4 judge northern district of FL is only the first step in this battle.

States are already paying the tab for all the contract litigation shitty TOS put on the courts.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Deep @%%#

If I ban someone from my business in any way because they are a Muslims, Jews, LGBT, people of color etc. I’m in the deepest of deep shit!

That’s what you misfits don’t get. This issue of legislative restrictions on private property has already been asked and answered in civil rights cases.

No you don’t have a fricking right to refuse service to whomever you want. Civil Rights law proves that fact.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

you don’t have a fricking right to refuse service to whomever you want.

So long as the refusal of service doesn’t run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, you can refuse to serve anyone you want. You can’t refuse to serve a Black man because he’s Black, but you can refuse to serve a Black man if he swears at your staff and bothers other customers. And FYI, there are still states in which it is 100% legal to deny service to gay people because they’re gay.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Nothing Specific

“So long as the refusal of service doesn’t run afoul of anti-discrimination laws”

There is nothing specific about “anti-discrimination” laws. If a state want’s to prevent discrimination against political affiliation they have every authority to treat it the same as race, gender, religion etc. are treated.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Huh.

And here I thought Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defined very specific terms.

Can you find the text, either in the Act or after it that defines ‘political affiliation’ as a protected class?

Or are you considering being a ‘whiny bitch conservative’ a disability?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

discrimination against political affiliation

Blacks don’t choose to be black.

Asians don’t choose to be asian.

Gays don’t choose to be gay.

Religion is sacrosanct in the US, regardless if it is a choice.

Political affiliation is purely a choice and not a protected class nor should it ever be. That would mean that the current party in power would always be the protected class and all other parties are not.

You advocating that states should have laws protecting political affiliation is something that I did nazi coming.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

That would mean that the current party in power would always be the protected class and all other parties are not.

It would also mean that an employer couldn’t fire an employee whose political opinions keep driving away business. Last I checked, the First Amendment (and any associated jurisprudence) outlaws forced association.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 In This Country

In this country when it comes to political discrimination employment is the area where it is easily the most prohibited.

Of the top of my head. California, New York, DC, Oregon, Wisconsin all have statutes prohibiting political discrimination in the work place.

You really live in a fantasy world. Get a job loser!

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:14

That some states have laws against political discrimination isn’t the point, the point is that an employee that through his actions impacts his employers business negatively can be fired – regardless of the employees political beliefs. If the employee is fired specifically for his political beliefs, that’s another matter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Simple: You can be a political activist without belonging to, or claiming affiliation with, a specific political party. And preventing an employer from firing an employee over political speech that could damage the business said employer is running (e.g., an employee saying “Black people don’t deserve welfare” and causing people to boycott that employee’s place of work) would be forced association⁠—which would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Unless a business is explicitly religious in nature (e.g., a Christian bookstore), no one is going to think that business is associated with the religion of a given employee. Or do you think an otherwise secular business suddenly becomes a “Muslim business” if it hires even one Muslim employee?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

There is nothing specific about “anti-discrimination” laws.

Yes, there is: Every anti-discrimination law mentions what “protected classes” it covers in re: outlawing discrimination. Inherent traits such as age, biological sex, race/ethnicity, and sexual identity are the ones most often covered by such laws; non-inherent traits such as religious beliefs are often covered as well. (In the United States, “political affiliation” is not a protected class.) Discrimination of those classes can be outlawed in housing, employment, and/or public accomodations; e.g., gay people can’t be fired for being gay, but in a not-zero number of U.S. states, they can still be legally denied housing and/or service in public accomodations for being gay.

If a state want[s] to prevent discrimination against political affiliation they have every authority to treat it the same as race, gender, religion etc. are treated.

And yet, they don’t.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What Reagan Said

What Regan said in his veto.

“I recognize that 18 years ago the Supreme Court indicated that the fairness doctrine as then applied to a far less technologically advanced broadcast industry did not contravene the First Amend­ ment. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). The Red Lion decision was based on the theory that usable broadcast frequencies were then so inherently scarce that government regula­tion of broadcasters was inevitable and the FCC’s “fairness doc­ trine” seemed to be a reasonable means of promoting diverse and vigorous debate of controversial issues. The Supreme Court indicated in Red Lion a willingness to recon­ sider the appropriateness of the fairness doctrine if it reduced father than enhanced broadcast coverage. In a later case, the Court acknowledged the changes in the technological and economic envi­ronment in which broadcasters operate. It may now be fairly con­cluded that the growth in the number of available media outlets does indeed outweigh whatever justifications may have seemed to exist at the period during which the doctrine was developed.”

This is the scarcity issue. Reagan agreed that yes when there were 4 national channels (later 3) yes scarcity made government regulation necessary. I’ve had this argument with Mike before. He vetoed the 87 act because there were now dozens of channels to choose from and the scarcity argument no longer held any water.

In this case were are talking about Satellite TV. You have 2 satellite TV providers Direct TV, and Dish Network, and usually one cable provider who has a local monopoly. Some rural regions of the country don’t even have a cable provider and have to get their TV exclusively from satellite.

So in the context of TV carriers yes the scarcity argument is still valid and still holds water as there are fewer carrier choices than there were channel choices when viewpoint regulation was considered Constitutional, valid, and necessary due to scarcity.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

in Halleck if public access television was applicable to social media you might have a point

Don’t know if you’ve been keeping up with your caselaw, fam, but as pointed out elsewhere:

Citing Halleck, the Ninth Circuit held that “YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is not transformed into a state actor solely by providing a forum for speech.” The court explained, “The relevant function performed by YouTube—hosting speech on a private platform—is hardly an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed.” The court further held, “YouTube does not perform a public function by inviting public discourse on its property.” In short, “digital Internet platforms that open their property to user-generated content do not become state actors.”

Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Prager’s First Amendment claim against Google/YouTube. (Source)

Halleck was directly cited by a federal court in a ruling on a lawsuit where the complaintant argued that content moderation on YouTube was a First Amendment violation.

Has any court cited Red Lion in any legal action taken to force a channel back onto a cable/satellite provider that dropped said channel?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

No, no, no this isn’t about the market at all. This is that ‘cancel culture’ thingy they’re on now, with a ‘big tech’ side dish, with a little ‘woke’ here & there.

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear socialism, communism, fascism, Marxist, and maybe a comparison to how this is worse than the holocaust as well.

It’s a RWNJ bingo extravaganza happening right under our noses!

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I’m old enough to remember that a core GOP platform used to be that government shouldn’t involve itself in routine business decisions without exceptional cause.

No you’re not, because that has has never been true. They have always been about inserting themselves in business decisions they don’t like while pretending they weren’t. You’re only old enough to remember the talking point from when the dog whistle wasn’t quite so loud.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

If we want to dig deeper, political parties in the US have no values. Literally. The political parties are made of of loose ideological confederations, which is why it is so easy for US policial parties to change positions and why its so hard to establish broad policy positions like ‘what is the role of government’.

That said, political parties including the GOP have a party platform they update every 2-4 years for the election cycle. It is the ‘official’ list of policies the party supported, even if individual members might disagree on specifics. In 2020 the GOP abandoned the idea of a party platform, designating the party’s official policies as whatever trump tweeted at 4 am.

By this metric alone, it is 100% true to say the the GOP used to have a platform whose stated bedrock was to get government out of routine business. We can both agree this policy, in practice, simply was the GOP attacking business it didn’t like and directing the government away from business it did. But the statement was about the platform not the implementation.

And even deeper, How does anyone determine when the government has “exceptional cause”? Why it turns out for legislators that amounts to a judgement call. That is to say, if you think a practice is bad or good is a major driver of the impetus to do something about the practice.

And while you and I agree motivations are unlikely to be so benign when dealing with grandstanding politicians, getting people to read your opinion piece and actually think about your arguments, attacking those politicians does not, as confirmed by science, the approach to take. Instead, by expressing disappointment, the author creates a sympathetic bond with the conservative reader who believes in the party platform. The author can forgo a fight about how genuine the politician is, and simply say to the reader, a voter more likely than the politician, “This is clearly not in line with the values you expect of the party.”

Will this change the mind of a GQP believer? No. Of course not. But there are a lot more people who vote (R) because they believe in the long standing small government policies and disuading those voters from believing the modern GOP is the same GOP of Reagan can change minds. And then, continuing to talk compassion, liberals and progressives and leftists can use that opening to continue to move those individuals toward more socially responsible policy. But it doesn’t work if you start off by shitting on the reader.

Metrics don’t lie. Softer language is received better by audiences not controlled by fear or anger. Viewership is better with softer language. And you do better convincing people with softer language. Idiot.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
NoahVail (profile) says:

Re: It's more true than not.

Recovering conservative here. I was there when RW platforms typically included notions like competing in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ (instead of compelling viewpoints via law), smaller government (except military) and even pushed back against LEO overreach [after Ruby Ridge] (instead of overt throbbing lust for all things LEO).

Unfortunately, my old ideology lost itself in endlessly reacting to the Left and eventually became a caricature of those responses. In short, RW American adopted everything it despised in the Left.

The human revulsion to cleaning one’s own house eventually does us in.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

IN 2016 the GOP had a “party platform” that included the stance Karl cites. They abandoned that platform in 2020 in favor of “Whatever trump says on twitter at 4am”. If you want to be pedantic about it, Karl is 100% accurate about the GOP platform.

And since wordpress bugs memory hole any long-form comments I write, ill just say that the overall use of soft language like lamenting a past GOP that may never have existed in reality is an attempt to establish a rapport with those GOP voters who the party has failed to support with the rise of Trump and highlight failures which can lead to votes shifting. You might get more flies with vinegar, but humans respond to sympathy more than anger.

TFG says:

Re: Re:

Entirely correct. The GOP once had much more in common with actual “Conservative” values – as in, being conservative in movements and fiscal responsibility and etc. etc., at least in terms of talking points.

Small government, property rights, etc. It is easy enough to draw lines between said stances and talking points to the “money for the elite” motivations behind things, but once upon a time the GOP was able to make rational sense.

That shifted dramatically with the era of Trump, and the abandoning of the idea of trying to speak things that could be true. Was what we are seeing now always part of the make-up? Possibly, maybe even probably.

Was it obvious or why people prior to 2016 were Republican? This I cannot support. There are broad swathes of former republicans (regular voters, nobody anybody knows the name of) who abandoned the party in light of its current playbook – and are possibly a big reason why Joe Biden won the democratic primary in 2020.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Dear Mr Paxton (and Mssrs Landry, Schmitt, Knudsen, and Wilson, and Ms Fitch):

Thank you for submitting your most recent stage play (“an open letter to Direct TV”). While it has a novel premise, I fear that the production values are poor, and despite your focus group testing, will not appeal to general audiences.

As you did not include return postage, we are unable to return your draft. We wish you luck in your future endeavors.

John Q Public
Reality Productions, Ltd

David says:

Perfectly consistent First Amendment stance

The preeminent interpretation of the First Amendment by leading Republican politicians is that the government may not mandate private parties to disseminate liberal statements. Also common sense makes clear that, if left alone to their own devices, any private party would only disseminate Republican bullet points.

So if any party fails to choose to disseminate Republican (or what counts as those nowadays) opinions, it clearly must be because the government (which wasn’t properly elected but used massive fraud to steal the election) has interfered with their First Amendment rights for regurgitating Republican propa… uhm, common-sense discourse.

The U.S. is competing with Russia in more than one way.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

How to Lie

“As with most modern GOP claims of this type, it’s largely performative victimization porn to keep the base angry. What the Trump GOP routinely calls “censorship” is usually just baseline levels of accountability for dumb behavior (like, say, falsely claiming in “news reports” that COVID was created in a South Carolina lab).”

Did OAN ever say that COVID-19 was created in a South Carolina lab?

No Karl just lied. How did Karl lie. Well Karl cites indyweek.com which references mediamatters.org. This is a form of fact laundering. You reference a more respectable source that references a less respectable source. No one is giving media matters any credibility so Karl instead cites another source that cites media matters. This launders the claim from media matters making it look more respectable at face value than it is.

How does media matters make its claim. Well it does so in a round about way.

“On March 14 and 15, pro-Trump cable news network OAN aired a coronavirus special called Exposing China’s Coronavirus: The Fears, The Lies and The Unknown. During that program, the network’s chief White House correspondent, Chanel Rion, suggested that the novel coronavirus responsible for the current pandemic may have originated in a North Carolina laboratory.”

Now does the special actually make this allegation? Well no it doesn’t. Media matter says that because the special quoted Greg Rubini although media matters doesn’t say OAN said it.

Instead media matters says “Rubini has said that the novel coronavirus “was GENETICALLY ENGINEERED as a Bio-Weapon at the Univ. of North Carolina BSL-3 Lab.” And then likes to his twitter.

In other words OAN cites Rubini. Rubini has said that the virus was engineered in North Carolina on Twitter not the OAN special. Media Matters then lies and says that by citing Rubini media matters therefore has said anything Rubini has ever said.

This is normal for media matters and why media matters isn’t considered a respectable source so Karl then launders the media matters piece through another source in hopes that no one follows the links long enough to see the source of the lie.

Now onto the North Carolina issue, not South like geographical idiot Karl said.

IF YOU HAVEN’T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION. Team Fauci specially his partner in crime Dr. Peter Daszak has spent the better part of the last two weeks throwing Dr. Ralph Baric of UNC under the bus on the COVID-19 genetically engineered issue.

While COVID-19 specifically was probably engineered at the Wuhan lab the technology needed to create COVID-19 was in fact developed by Dr. Ralph Baric at the UNC. Dr. Baric owns the patent US-9884895-B2 “Methods and compositions for chimeric coronavirus spike proteins” for the chemical process needed to engineer a COVID-19 like virus, Dr. Shi Zhengli (China’s Bat Lady) “owns” the Chinese Patent.

It was this process to modoify specifically that led to the moratorium on gain of function research in the US enacted by the Secretary of HHS in 2014.

It is this patent that has lead some like Rubini to take the leap that Dr. Baric continued to develop chimeric viruses under his patent during the moratorium. Now at present there is no evidence he did but that is also no evidence that he didn’t. However, I think its more likely the research continued as Wuhan with his partner Dr. Zhengli. Even the 2018 DARPA proposal to attach human furin cleavage spike proteins to bat corona viruses specified the research would be done in Wuhan.

That point being made OAN never said the virus was created in North Carolina. The processes needed to create the virus was however invented in North Carolina.

Karl used some fact laundering to make a bullshit media matters claim look legitimate.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re: Pot, kettle

If “OAN cited the source of their bullshit claim” launders any responsibility for repeating the claim, and you acknowlege Karl cited a source, he is not responsible for the falisty of his sourced claim.

Indeed, what you had to do to construct this theory is assume an order of events, that Karl wanted to make a claim and sought out a source to cite, while assuming the opposite for OAN, that they came across a claim and ran it on air. You’ve had to assert facts not evidenced by the public record to justify your claims of fact laundering. How is your deception morally superior?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Its His Responsibility

It took me less than 2 min to get back to media matters. Karl as the author takes responsibility to identify the original source. I don’t believe he is that stupid and didn’t make the effort. I think he knew full well the original source is media matters laundered the source through a secondary source.

That is willful intention to mislead AKA a lie. There are more types of lying than just lies of commission. Only people with the mental and emotional development of children think only lies of commission are lies.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 It Takes a Lot of Study

It takes a lot of study to identify the tell tale signs of personality disorders in people.

That stamping your feet yelling ‘I didn’t lie!’ is a tell tale sign of someone who has a personality disorder. All personality disorders are stunted mental and emotional development. The adult is stuck at a childlike developmental stage. An actual adult adult recognizes that lying is more complex than simple lies of commission.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

When your best insult is a decades-old pop culture reference intended to imply that I’m intellectually disabled, I have nothing to worry about from you. And given how bad your arguments are in every other respect⁠—to the point where you shrink into a corncob because you’re outclassed by everyone you insult⁠—that your go-to response is to insult everyone here instead of re-considering your arguments and forming stronger ones is, in all sincerity, as hilarious as Ziggy having Garfield neutered.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Im arguing with 6 extremists on a blog run by a person who’s peers all agree has gone nuts.

The only extremist in this discussion is the one who thinks the government should be forcing cable/satellite providers to carry any and all television channels that those providers don’t want to carry. You’re the one who thinks the First Amendment’s protection against forced association shouldn’t apply if it’s preventing a speaker you like from being on a platform that doesn’t want them. You’re literally shitting on the First Amendment so you can win an argument on a tech blog that you hate.

If we’re no-life nutbags and you’re still wasting your four-degrees-having time on us, what does that say about you?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: You Still Read It

The number of responses I get to “flagged” posts tells me you are till reading. And you know that I have each of you pegged in more ways then one 😉

It hurts because I’m not the first one to identify your mental problems. By this stage in your life your loved ones have most likely given up on you. This pathetic tech blog is all you have left.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Proection

Conservatives don’t generally do that. If they do its part of a schtick. Using their protected status in the victim hierarchy is something the left does. This lack of victimhood is something that separates conservatives from liberals. How many people actually knew that Charles Krauthammer was a quadriplegic? He went to great extents to make sure that is disability was not well known. A leftist would have never shut up about it.

But don’t worry I promise I’ll give you are reach around. That’s the nice thing about sissies like you. You can reach around and its like you went all the way through lol

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 More Games

Now you are just playing more games hoping other readers don’t know the rules.

We both know that sissies are cisgender my little sissy. Your sissy flag has the male symbol on it.

We both know that symbol is there to make it absolutely clear to anyone not in the community that sissies are not trans.

You are such a brat.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

Just when everyone thought ‘he wouldn’t be that much of a fucking dickhead’ here you are exceeding expectations, proving once again how much of an asshole you are.

But this is an important learning tool for you as well…this kind of stuff is why you fucktards get kicked off of any social media platform worth a fuck.

You’re fucking assholes.

Asshole.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 How Do You Know?

How do you know I’m not into delusional fuckwits like him? You are making a lot of assumptions here. He clearly loves the abuse because he keeps coming back for more. More than any other trait that is what makes a gay/bisexual man a sissy.

Yeah bears tend to be more conservative. They have higher testosterone levels very masculine. This causes them to politically tend conservative. Sissies are effeminate subs who tend to have feminine features and personality including leftwing beliefs. Bears generally aren’t attracted to other gay/bisexual men who are masculine and prefer sissies and twinks. Sissies aren’t generally attracted to other gay/bisexual men who are feminine and prefer bears. No effeminate twink or sissy can give the sissy the level of abuse and degradation they crave. Bears and sissies are like Yin and Yang. The bear is daddy and master, and the sissy is daddy’s little cock loving slut.

Don’t kink shame you ignorant homophobe.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Such a Brat

I haven’t said anything about not having consent. A sissy like you will be screaming “@#$$ my dirty mouth daddy.”

Its very insulting that you would imply that the bear sissy relationship isn’t consensual.

While I get that you are being a brat making comments like that are a step to far the community does not and has never tolerated rape. Stop it!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14

I haven’t said anything about not having consent.

I have.

I’ve never wanted to fuck you; I’ll never want to fuck you; the only way you’ll ever fuck me is without my consent. Unless you want to be known as a potential rapist instead of merely a misinformed dipshit troll, you may want to stop talking about how you’re going to rape me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 lol

You are such a moron. So I go on vacation to whatever shithole city you live in. I go out to the local gay club beucase that is something I always do. We meet I’m 6’2″ 250 you are a tiny sissy in your pink and white stripped shit.

Hi, I’m Chozen.

lol

Even if I knew it was you I wouldn’t tell you until after I fucked you.

Like I said I’m sissy catnip. You would be all over me.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16

We meet I’m 6’2″ 250 you are a tiny sissy in your pink and white stripped shit.

Listen, you fat fuck…I think I speak for a lot of people posting when I say that no one gives a fucking shit about some simple-minded douchebag who thinks his size somehow impresses anyone.

Take it back to the schoolyard. And while you’re there, have them teach you about homophones.

Dumbass.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Size Impresses?

You cant be serious. Do you even date and fuck?

Yes size impresses you moron.

This has been extensively studied. For men height is the shingle most important physical factor for succus both in the sexual market place and the buisnuiss market place.

“Study Says Men Who Are 5’6” Need To Earn Additional $175k To Be As Desirable As 6-Feet-Tall Guys”

https://brobible.com/culture/article/short-men-must-earn-more-money/

Standing tall pays off, study finds

https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing

No I’m not doing more research there are literally hundreds if not thousands of studies on this.

John Adams said of George Washington ‘We always made him the leader because he was always the tallest guy in the room.

Mike’s Misfits are funny. You will just deny common knowledge to challenge anything you can think of to show someone you don’t like is wrong about anything no matter how immaterial.

You are an absolutely pathetic loser.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

In other words OAN cites Rubini.

When you got to that particular sentence, you should have realized what a semantic shit-mess you’ve started, and then just not bothered to post it.

Why? Not because I don’t advocate for your right to be anything short of a fucking dumbass. Believe me, you people have entertained me throughout the pandemic with your herd stupidity.

No – I say that because it’s people like you that have made America look like a collection of the dumbest fucks on the planet over the last 7 years.

Do the country a favor and just shut up. Dumbass.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Oh a Typo

Oh a typo lord help me lol.

You are just proving that you have a slow wit. Scanning a post for typo’s and grammatical errors is the go to for slow witted people.

You are slow. You are pathetic. You know you are slow and pathetic. You are the guy who levees the club after being humiliated by a guy like me and goes ‘oh that’s what I should have said.’

Sorry there is no reset button in life you slow loser.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Oh a typo lord help me lol.

One would think such an intellectually superior person would have not only heard about spell-check, but learned how to use it.

Protip for you – if your shit is underlined, you should take another look at it.

You are the guy who levees the club after being humiliated by a guy like me and goes ‘oh that’s what I should have said.’

See above.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

spell check doesn’t catch homophones

How…interesting. So you’re saying that for:

‘It took her 9 months to come up with here best joke ever.’

It should have been this?

‘It took her 9 months to come up with hear best joke ever.’

And for this gem:

‘You are the guy who levees the club after being humiliated by a guy like me and goes ‘oh that’s what I should have said.’

It should have been this instead?

‘You are the guy who levies the club after being humiliated by a guy like me and goes ‘oh that’s what I should have said.’

I’m not sure this is doing anything positive for your credibility, as far as your degrees are concerned.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Don’t forget Chozen, you are still the stupid fucking idiot that thinks:

  • A public house is public housing.
  • A bar needs a license to kick people out.
  • I can’t use force to kick you off my private property.
  • etc. etc. etc.

You love to come in here and act like you are some special snowflake like no other with your pretend education.

You also show just how dumb you are when you always resort to invoking / threatening violence when you get your fee fees hurt. Which is especially ironic when you are part of the “fuck your feelings” MAGA crowd.

You are nothing but an idiot coward that likes to pretend you are some super special smart tough snowflake!!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Nope You Are Just Stupid

A public house was public housing. Privately owned rent controlled cheep rooms for the poor. But there is no such thing as a public house anymore. The government no longer requires “landlords” to have rooms for cheep rent to get a liquor license.

Why do you think even today modern pub owners are still called “landlord.” Its a history thing you were just too stupid to know.

Again Mikes Misfits all ride the short bus.

A bar needs a license to kick people out. In most states, which I specifically said in my OP, you have to hire licensed security to physically kick people out. You an insane leftist were reduced to citing Texas law which is the exception to the rule.

I said this is the general rule and not the case in all states and you cited Texas law. You are that stupid!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 I Can Google Too

Oh look I can google too.

“I just came across the fact that Brits call the owners\operators of their pubs landlords, (on the new show “The Reluctant Landlord”). Being from the USA I am only aware of the term landlord being used to refer to the person you pay your rent to if you are renting a house, apartment/flat or shop etc., not a hotel or motel (and I love British humor\television shows and movies). Anyway it got me thinking: why is that?”

Every time I have been to England and Ireland the pub owner is called the landord. Maybe you have a different experience. I don’t claim to have traveled the whole of both islands. However, I’m not coming to my conclusions from frantic google searches trying to find sources that agree with me.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

A public house was public housing. Privately owned rent controlled cheep rooms for the poor. But there is no such thing as a public house anymore.

A public house in times past also had rooms to let, but that does not make them public housing. You still can’t get over the fact that you made a mistake and you keep brining up some history issue with the word “public house”. AT NO POINT IN HISTORY was a public house government funded public housing for low income residents. And yes public houses do exist today, as I was at one just last night. And you know what, last week I went to one that even called itself “Public House”. There there is still such a thing as a public house, it’s called a pub you fucking idiot!

A bar needs a license to kick people out.

A bar DOES NOT NEED A LICENSE TO PHYSICALLY KICK PEOPLE OUT! PERIOD!! FULL STOP!!! You have never provided a single link to any codified law nor have you cited a single legal case to back up your statement. Everybody else here, those of us who don’t pretend to have four degrees, understand that you are 100% wrong in your statement.

You an insane leftist

I have never called myself leftist, nor do I relate to either tribal “side”. So now you are just making shit up… oh wait… that’s what you always do.

I said this is the general rule and not the case in all states and you cited Texas law. You are that stupid!

Look who is stupid here, you are conflating two different arguments in to one. When the Texas law was posted after a 15 second google search, it was posted as a means to point out trespassing laws. Now that you are confused about what argument went with which crazy idea you spew out as you are still ranting on about a bar kicking out an unwanted drunk.

You also seem to think that I am not allowed to use force to remove you from my private property the moment I tell you you are trespassing. Yes, in most states I can’t just pull out my gun and shoot you, but I can use whatever reasonable amount of force is required to kick you out of my house, even if I invited you in just moments earlier. Some states will even allow me to shoot you.

You should go back through your post history as it appears you are too dumb to keep track of all the stupid argument you are making.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Yes it Does

“A public house in times past also had rooms to let, but that does not make them public housing. ”

Yes it does make them public housing because even today HUD says that 10% of the public housing market is privately owned and growing through the Obama era RAD program, look it up.

So again shut up! I don’t care what you read on Wikipedia.

“When the Texas law was posted after a 15 second google search, it was posted as a means to point out trespassing laws.”

Exactly frantic google searching! Yes it is not the same in all states. Texas is the most extreme state in the union when it comes to trespass. You a person slighlty to the right of Lenin was reduced to citing Texas law because you couldn’t find anything else.

I will say again as I sad in the beginning. The general law in most states is that only licensed private security or police officers can physically remove someone. You are only legally allowed to use force in response to force. If the person is not being violent you cannot use violence to remove them. If you don’t have licensed security you have to call the cops.

You morons frantically searched google and eventually found an exception to the rule which I stated in the first post most likely existed and Texas, Alabama, etc where the specific states I was thinking of. But I’m not a loser like you so I’m not going to franticly read law in all 50 states and DC you pathetic loser!.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The general law in most states is that only licensed private security or police officers can physically remove someone.

Prove it MFer!!!!

You have yet to show a single city ordinance, state law, nor federal law, nor have you cited a single court case that backs up your crazy idea.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Sources required, I gave mine in a previous thread, and those show that public house laws applied to inn and hostelries providing food drink and a bed to travelers. That use dates back to the early 1600’s.

Public housing on the other hand, only dates back to the Industrial revolution, as interestingly do poorhouses, otherwise known as work houses.

Note public house and public housing should not be confused with each other, they have distinct meanings.

If you want to dispute this, you need to provide the citations I could not find. On the other hand you can can get angry and remain an ignorant troll.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 No They Don't

No they dont. A public house was rent controlled housing. Today HUD says that 10% of all public housing is privately owned and growing thanks to the Obama era RAD program. This private/public semantic word game has no real meaning because it didn’t apply then and doesn’t even apply today.

Public housing means both housing provided and owned the state, or privately owned housing where the state has used its power to control the cost of rent, number of dwellings etc.

This is still the case today. If you paid attention to the news you would know the “Public Housing” has been moving to a more private model but is still considered public housing your ignorant moron.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Wikipedia, Britannica, and the following dictionaries:- Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, the Freedictionary: which cites other dictionaries, etc. all define public house as a pub, or place where drink is sold to be consumed on the premises.

Strictly speaking, public housing is government owned housing, often referred to as council housing when owned by local councils. Non profit housing is more correctly refereed to as social housing, a term which includes public housing.

A public house, like a hotel, may have rooms to let, but that does not make them public housing, but rather a place for a traveler to stay.

NOTE, Public housing and public house are not synonymous, and claiming they are makes you look like a bad loser.

Cattress (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I have seen my petite but fierce younger female cousin boot out disorderly drunks from a bar she was merely a bar tender at. I have seen a number of instances where managers, staff and owners have removed problematic patrons of bars, clubs, restaurants, without any security guard in sight. I live in Delaware. My ex got fall down drunk- and he was over served despite my request that he not be served any more alcohol, and we were asked to leave when he fell and pulled a chair from another table down trying to get up. The manager didn’t even want me to wait until the check arrived, just wanted his drunk ass gone. This was a fancy Italian restaurant. This was a privately owned public place, with requirements for handicapped parking and restrooms. No security guards or bouncers, just host/hostess. In Delaware, a fairly progressive state. I don’t know where you got that dumb idea about who can can kick a problematic visitor out of a privately owned public place.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Re:

…I’m trying to suss out what point you’re trying to make in those fourteen paragraphs of grammatically-questionable, half-coherent ranting.

It seems to be that OAN didn’t actually claim that COVID-19 was created in a lab, it just cited a guy who believes that as an expert? And you think that distinction is Very Important for some reason?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, when person B cites person A as an expert, yeah I do.

Lay off the OCD with this one. It’s really a stupid hill for you to choose to die on.

Perhaps re-read the article.

Grasp what it is that the author is talking about.

Then realize the key issue isn’t your insignificant quip.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

Mentally healthy people are not so tribal as to believe that if you cite a person you accept anything that person has ever said.

When you cite someone as an expert, and that someone says full-of-shit-nutcase stuff about the thing they’re supposed to be an expert on? Keep digging.

Fucking fool.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
sumgai (profile) says:

Re: Welcome

Chozen, welcome to Koby-ville, where you, LostinLados, restless, and a few others are automatically flagged, without so much as a passing glance. I see your name, my mouse pointer reaches for the flag button.

I can’t even admire your imaginative skills as James B. did, because I was convinced by the third paragraph that either you’re Koby’s twin, or Koby himself under another moniker. Either way, the flag button works just fine.

The very fact that we have to keep flagging the bunch of you clowns demonstrates quite competently that you don’t know how to learn. That was wasted taxpayer dollars for your education, and I don’t know whether to cuss or cry for that loss. Let me paraphrase my parents when I was young and didn’t want to eat everything on my plate at dinner:

Uneducated kids in poor countries want to learn and have knowledge, yet here you are, openly despising the opportunity to make yourself better by learning how to grow up and be an adult. Shame on you.

Yeah, that’s another thing you didn’t learn, how to feel shame. In my book, that alone makes you a prime candidate for post-natal abortion.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

When?

“I’m old enough to remember that a core GOP platform used to be that government shouldn’t involve itself in routine business decisions without exceptional cause. Yet here, six AGs took the time to take DirecTV to task simply for booting a channel from its lineup that not many people watched.”

I would never be a member of a party that held such views and I never remember the Republican Party holding such views. Extreme elements of the party may have, like the John Birch society. But they have never ever held any power within the party?

The Birch Society was founded in 58. Goldwater actively fought against them in 64 using William F. Buckley Jr.,
as his hitman to take out Welche. During Nixon the Nixon administration the administration forced through OSHA, EPA, fiat currency etc. and the powerless John Birch society bitched moaned and complained. After Nixon during Regan the John Birch society was essentially removed from the party.

That extreme fringe of the GOP makes up what today is “L”ibertarins. The GOP as a party never stood for any of this “L”ibertarian insanity. And those morons haven’t even been part of the GOP since 1980.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Texas

You think the cant? Texas as many rural areas where satellite is the only option for TV carrier. That’s 2 choices DirectTV and Dish Network. Under a scarcity argument Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969. At that time there were only 4 national channels which was scarce enough for the court to allow regulation against viewpoint discrimination. Today there are only 2 major satellite carriers. Texas has every legal right to force satellite providers that operate in their state to carry OAN and not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Texas as many rural areas where satellite is the only option for TV carrier

That still doesn’t mean the government should inject itself into the financial decisions of a private business.

It seems to be antithetical of the GQP to promote big government getting involved in private business.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Should the state of Texas regulate satellite providers within the state and not allow viewpoint discrimination? We can have the debate.

And that debate will ultimately boil down to you insulting everyone who points out that preventing “viewpoint discrimination” would mean the government could force private entities to host speech like racial slurs against the wills of said entities.

Can they do so?

No, they can’t⁠—and you have yet to provide an on-point citation of law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says otherwise.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

So you’re saying that the Texas AG should be able to force the NY Times, The Washington Post, and every other media outlet to carry only articles that are favorable to the AG / GQP because Texas’ rural areas don’t have local newspapers?

That is seriously what you are advocating for, gov’t interference into private business decisions.

Also, in what law does it state that DirecTV needs to be viewpoint neutral in their business decisions that would force them to carry OAN?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

you are an ignorant moron.

Says the guy who confused a public house with government funded public housing.

Says the guy who thinks you need a license to remove somebody from your business establishment.

Says the guy who thinks I can’t use force to remove you as a trespasser on my private property.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Read

Read,

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969 the seminal case on the issue of content regulation, First Amendment, and scarcity.

While Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC may no longer be valid because there is no longer scarcity in channels there is still scarcity in carriers. Carries can still be regulated to not engage in content discrimination.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

While Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC may no longer be valid because there is no longer scarcity in channels there is still scarcity in carriers.

Which means Red Lion is irrelevant, since it deals with channels instead of carriers.

Carrie[r]s can still be regulated to not engage in content discrimination.

[citation needed]

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC

Its still very relevant because while there isn’t scarcity in channels anymore there is still scarcity in carriers. If you can regulate view point discriminations in channels because of scarcity you can regulate viewpoint discrimination in carriers because of scarcity.

Let me say it this way. You say Halleck which dealt with public access television say it applies to social media because the legal principle can be applied to social media. You are actually correct but way too broad in how you interpret the decision as it only relates to state actor claims. Where you become a hypocritical moron when when you say that a legal precedence that doesn’t fit your narrative like Munn, Pruneyard, Red Lion etc. cant be applied because the specific context was different.

You believe this because you are a hypocrite and an idiot.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

If you can regulate view point discriminations in channels because of scarcity you can regulate viewpoint discrimination in carriers because of scarcity.

You have yet to explain how a television channel⁠—a single channel of a single broadcast lineup⁠—is the same thing as a cable television carrier. When you can do that, maybe you’ll have a better chance of convincing me that your bullshit isn’t bullshit.

You say Halleck which dealt with public access television say it applies to social media because the legal principle can be applied to social media.

I have never said Halleck applies directly to social media. I’ve said that the logic in Halleck could apply to social media. Here’s the beginning of my copypasta on the matter if you don’t believe me: “Social media services are not public fora. A Supreme Court ruling from 2019, for which Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, doesn’t directly address social media but still provides the logic necessary to counter any ‘yes they are public fora’ argument[.]”

Don’t lie about things I’ve said. I have a memory, a comment history, and a text expander, and you can’t counter any of those with “yo’ momma” jokes.

Where you become a hypocritical moron when when you say that a legal precedence that doesn’t fit your narrative like Munn, Pruneyard, Red Lion etc. cant be applied because the specific context was different.

The context in Halleck was different, and I’ve never said otherwise. But the logic of the ruling itself could be applied to a social media context, whereas Munn and Pruneyard can’t without twisting their meaning or defining social media in such a way that it stops being what it is right now.

And Red Lion can’t apply to cable TV carriers because it applies to channels. You have yet to provide any substantive argument on what makes a channel the same thing as a cable TV carrier. When you can do that, you can argue that the logic of Red Lion can be applied to the situation described in the article. Until then: Your argument is shit and you’d be better off sticking to your insults (which are also shit).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:2

The decision for Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC says that the FCC has the right to enforce the Fairness Doctrine when there is a limited amount of channels available, and that makes the case totally irrelevant since that doctrine was abolished in 1987.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Never Overturned by SCOTUS

Red Lion was never overturned. Its still the law of the land. Just because the law or regulation no longer exists doesn’t void the SCOTUS or Appellate Court precedence. For example the “assault weapons ban” hasn’t been law since 2004 but the case law related to the ban is still cited in gun control cases today. This is going on right now as cases related to California’s state ban are working their way up the 9th circuit and the State of California is citing oodles of case law form the 9th circuit related to the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act which hasn’t been law for 18 years.

The law may be gone but the case law still remains and is still valid.

Get it moron?

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Red Lion was never overturned.

It didn’t need to be. The shelving of the Fairness Doctrine and the wide availability of channels on a given cable/satellite provider’s lineup make Red Lion an inert legal precedent. And since you need reminding: Red Lion did not then, nor does it now, apply to television carriers regardless of all your braying about “scarcity”.

For example the “assault weapons ban” hasn’t been law since 2004 but the case law related to the ban is still cited in gun control cases today.

So what? Citing the case law related to the ban has no bearing on whether the ban can be enforced. That means citing Red Lion is pointless if the precedent it set has no direct bearing on whether DirecTV can be forced by law to carry OANN.

The law may be gone but the case law still remains and is still valid.

If and when the precedent set by Red Lion forces OANN back onto DirecTV, you let me know. Until then, you might want to stick with doling out those preschool playground insults.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 This is Where You Are Stupid

“Citing the case law related to the ban has no bearing on whether the ban can be enforced.”

It has every bearing on if a state ban or even another federal ban can be enforced. The federal law may no longer be in effect but the rulings affect the constitutionality of any existing or future bans.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

The federal law may no longer be in effect but the rulings affect the constitutionality of any existing or future bans.

In which case Red Lion can only affect whether the government can enforce the Fairness Doctrine on over-the-air broadcast networks. Since the Fairness Doctrine is dead and there are a plethora of networks both over-the-air and otherwise…well, even you can see where this is headed.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

OMG. You misread every case you cite.

Red Lion was dependent on scarcity, but not in some vague manner that any scarcity allows government compulsion. It was dependent on the fact that spectrum was (1) scarce and (2) owned publicly. You leave out point (2) in your ridiculously wrong analysis because you apparently can’t read the actual ruling (something you regularly, falsely, accuse me of). Spectrum is owned by the public, and the ruling in Red Lion was basically saying that because it’s a scarce public good, then the government can put conditions on the allocation of it.

But it does not mean that mere scarcity enables gov’t compulsion.

Once again, you are little more than over confident projection, Chozen.

(Also, I’ll just leave as an aside that it’s ridiculous that you cite Red Lion in support of Republicans, given that Republicans have long insisted that Red Lion was wrongly decided — but it’s not like you have any principles beyond “GOP is right and Techdirt is wrong.”)

You’re a joke.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 LOL

Not to get into a deeper argument but what an idiot.

Hey Mike! Does DishNetwork own the 300 MHz-300 GHz spectrum?

You are such a sophist. You aren’t qualified to talk about 99% of the shit you opine on. You are just a typical big tech conman. You got their first and dug your heels in and aren’t leaving.

One of the reasons I like this little blog is you are the living embodiment of everything that is wrong with BigTech.

You are a poor mans Jack Dorsey. Dear in the headlights utterly clueless.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You remain the dumbest fucking troll we’ve had in a long time.

Yes, Dish owns spectrum which it uses, and the FCC could put certain conditions on that spectrum. That means literally fuck all when it comes to state AG’s demanding it carry an entire station, which they cannot.

Dude, you’re not smart. You’re the definition of Dunning Kruger.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Im Still Laughing

I’m still laughing at your abjest stupidity lol lol lol

Like microwave and and radio wave aren’t the same thing, electromagnetic radiation, at different frequencies.

You just don’t know the shit you talk about you. You are a conartist. Its apparent. You are a professional bullshit artist.

Conartist, grifter, bullshit artist whatever you want to call it. Your fundamental incompetency just flys off the screen to anyone who has the slightest understanding of the subjects at hand.

lol

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Satelite

Oh and further more you are missing another level of private vs. public.

Satellites you dope! The echostar system is not located on DishNetwork’s private property you god damn grifter.

This is why people like you are anachronisms that need to be relegated to the pack pages along with get rich quick schemes and prostitution rings. Your vision of the world economy at all levels is simply unworkable.

Anarcho-capitalism didn’t work 1781-1787 what the hell makes you think it will work today?

Its your own sociopathy manifest. You don’t believe regulations shouldn’t exist. You just don’t think that they should apply to you.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I thought everyone knew about it, it’s a subsection of the hidden clause of the first amendment that states you are owed a right to the platform of your choice regardless of that platform actually wanting you there, with the subsection laying out the responsibility of companies to not just host but pay for content and speech they don’t want.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

A citation to the contrary has arguable already been presented as if there was a legal right to force a broadcaster to carry a particular channel the AG’s would have brought it up if not tried to apply it rather than bluster about how dropping a channel with less than fifteen thousand average viewers will somehow cost DirecTV millions in profits and viewers.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re:

The scarcity argument is founded on the Fairness Doctrine and the scarcity of available radio spectrum as portioned out by the government which led to fewer broadcasters as a direct consequence.

From the decision:
In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government’s role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA [US v. Radio Television News Directors Association] reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion

When it comes to satellite, there isn’t really a scarcity of available spectrum. That there are only 2 major satellite operators is entirely due to the high cost of operating a satellite network.

Regardless, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC lost its relevance when the Fairness Doctrine was scrapped in 1987.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

FSM help me for bothering.

No they can’t you ignorant asswipe.
In this nation a single cable provider has been called a competitive market by a court.

Texas has NO right to demand any carrier do a god damned thing, because the state can’t control private businesses like that until we go full dictatorship.

Save your insults and amazing “legal genius” comebacks.

You are incorrect a majority of the time.
You bend reality to fit the fiction in your head of how things SHOULD work in your estimation.
You dig in deeper and deeper, multiplying the level of wrong you manage to achieve and then just insult others for daring to know the actual facts rather than your imaginary version of events.

You are the long string of orange lies on my screen that will never turn blue because you add nothing to any subject because you operate in your own reality.

Run along, adults are talking.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Should or Can?

Again you are confusing should and can.

“Texas has NO right to demand any carrier do a god damned thing” ~ Can argument. You are saying that they lack the power.

“because the state can’t control private businesses like that until we go full dictatorship.” ~ Justified by a should. They shouldn’t do it because it would be bad.

Yes Mike’s misfits confuse should and can all the time. I got news for you. They are not interchangeable.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

because you are stupid.

Says the child who is having a temper tantrum while yelling:

“I’m right and you are all wrong, even with all your arguments that make me look stupid!!!!!”

Over and over again!!!

Also, if this precedent that you speak of, where the Texas AG can force a private business into a specific business decision, please provide at least one example so that we can discuss the merits and how it could relate to a private satellite TV business.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You’ve cited cases that have nothing to do with the situation at hand. You’ve failed to cite a directly on-point law or statute.

Please tell us how Texas can legally force DirecTV to carry OANN. Detail the exact process with exact and on-point citations of law/legal precedent. If you can’t do that, go to your local theater⁠—they could probably use a good projectionist.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Welp, then this case will certainly be a slam dunk for Paxton and the other fools. We’ll know for certain who’s right/wrong with all this shit you’re citing in a few weeks, no? I’d estimate a week or so when they start fundraising off the rubes (again).

Your ‘arguments’ suggest DirecTV can’t kick channels off of its lineup. I’m wondering how you think that’s supposed to work. If they can’t kick channels off, and those channels cost them money while bringing in nothing, you think it’s somehow both legal and justified to force DirecTV to carry them?

All that schooling, and law courses didn’t seem to do jack shit for your common sense, did it?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Yet Babylon Bee is suspended from twitter for calling a trans woman he.

Twitter, just like a bar or restaurant, has a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason.

Yes there are a few exceptions in terms of specific protected classes of people, but the Babylon Bee is not one of those protected classes.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The account isn’t suspended because you can still see it. The people who run the account are locked out of the account for posting some transphobic bullshit and could get access back at any time. They admit that they must delete the tweet that broke Twitter’s rules to regain access, which is why they still don’t have access: They refuse to delete that tweet.

They broke the rules. They got popped for it. It’s not Twitter’s fault that the people behind that right-wing “comedy” site would prefer playing martyr to basically owning their own hatred of transgender people.

MightyMetricBatman says:

Not just because this is an unwise
business decision, but because you are masking what is obviously viewpoint discrimination
with neutral corporate-speak; your decision was certainly not based on a “routine internal
review.”

You do realize Mr. Ken Paxton, that government control over business decisions of what is supposed to be private entities is communism.

Mr. Ken Paxton is a communist.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

So summing up the trash talk in this article so far, Chozen insists that Texas law applies for his arguments like a license being needed to kick out unruly bar patrons, but doesn’t apply when it might make his arguments look bad because “Texas law is the exception”. It says a lot when you post a series of rants that makes horse with no name look like the mature one in the room…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: I Don't Agree at All

I don’t agree with Texas trespass law at all. I think its archaic. That I don’t agree with how state power is used does not mean that such power doesn’t exist or is unconstitutional.

If you are going to be in any industry you need to understand the @^%ing law, federal, state and local. Mike wasn’t BigTech free from any regulatory control, unless it benefits him like section 230.

Part of this reason is Mike isn’t qualified to know or understand regulatory law in all 50 states. So maintaining this wild wild west is important to him for his personal employment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Qualified Immunity

My opposition to section 230 is I have a legal constitutional right to sue anyone I want. The granting of a federal immunity is a work around the government used to accomplish regulation of speech online that they couldn’t accomplish directly.

Using immunity to encourage private to take action the state could not was a gross abuse of state power.

Much like Mike I’m opposed to qualified immunity.

Unlike Mike I don’t differentiate between qualified immunities I don’t like such as his dislike for LEO qualified immunity, and qualified immunities I do like such as his like for section 230.

I’m not a hypocrite like Mike and Mikes Misfits. I oppose qualified immunity in all aspects. I think its an archaic feudal holdover that amounts in the present to nothing but an abuse of state power that should be abolished entirely.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

My opposition to section 230 is I have a legal constitutional right to sue anyone I want.

You have the right to sue Twitter. Section 230 only kicks in if you have no standing to sue Twitter⁠—e.g., if you’re suing Twitter for speech it didn’t publish.

The granting of a federal immunity is a work around the government used to accomplish regulation of speech online that they couldn’t accomplish directly.

230 doesn’t regulate speech. It bolsters protection for First Amendment–protected activity so that lawsuits targeting said activity can be safely dismissed.

Using immunity to encourage private to take action the state could not was a gross abuse of state power.

That isn’t what 230 does at all. If anything, 230 was a direct response to the government using its power to make companies like Twitter liable for third-party speech (by way of a court ruling intended to put legal liability on platforms for speech they didn’t moderate). And FYI, the Supreme Court ruled that 230 was constitutional but certain provisions in the rest of the Communications Decency Act⁠—ones intended to regulate online speech⁠—were not.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Immunity is Contiutional

Immunity in general is Constitutional. I believe we need a constitutional amendment to strip away the 11th Amendment and most forms of immunity. I would only leave an exception for immunity to compel testimony as without that the 5th Amendment makes things unworkable.

Now I do not believe section 230 is constitutional because the stated purpose was to encourage private actors to engage in censorship. It was a “work around” and after Biden vs. Missouri with “work around” both making into oral arguments and Roberts concurrence it is part of Constitutional law for evermore.

From now on “work around” is a legitimate argument to bring to the court.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

I do not believe section 230 is constitutional because the stated purpose was to encourage private actors to engage in censorship.

No, the stated purpose of 230 was to allow platforms to moderate speech as they saw fit without worrying about legal liability for what they didn’t moderate. Under 230, a platform’s owners/operators can be as lenient or as strict with their moderation as they wish. That’s how you end up with “family-friendly” sites and shitpits like 4chan co-existing on the same Internet.

Only a fool believes moderation⁠—the intentional curation of a community through rules, shared standards, and the enforcement thereof⁠—is censorship. You believe moderation is censorship, so…yeah… 👀

It was a “work around” and after Biden vs. Missouri … it is part of Constitutional law for evermore.

[citation needed; include a proper link and all pertinent context]

From now on “work around” is a legitimate argument to bring to the court.

Even if it were⁠—and I don’t grant that it is⁠—the whole point of 230 was, in the on-the-Congressional-record words of Chris Cox (a Republican!), to “establish as the policy of the United States that we do not wish to have content regulation by the Federal Government of what is on the Internet, that we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet because frankly the Internet has grown up to be what it is without that kind of help from the Government.” That sounds like someone who wants to keep the government out of the business of Internet censorship⁠—and he fucking co-wrote Section 230. You need to stop making ridiculous claims about what 230 is about until you’ve read what the people who wrote the bill have to say on that matter; you only look even more foolish when people like me can out-cite people like you. (Text expanders are handy for that.)

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Now I do not believe section 230 is constitutional because the stated purpose was to encourage private actors to engage in censorship.

You are free to cite where it says that the stated reason was censorship.

And I fail to see what Biden v Missouri has to do with 230 in any way since it is about what rules the Secretary of Health can implement and enforce without going through the notice-and-comment procedure. I happen to agree with Judge Alto’s dissenting opinion insofar that a lot of rule-making has fallen on bureaucrats, but that failing is entirely the Congress’ fault.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

Now I do not believe section 230 is constitutional because the stated purpose was to encourage private actors to engage in censorship.

Huh. What an incredible example of cognitive dissonance, especially given Ken Paxton’s encouragement of exactly that when it comes to the ability to obtain an abortion.

Anonymous Coward says:

My opposition to section 230 is I have a legal constitutional right to sue anyone I want.

To me is sounds like you want to be able to sue Techdirt because I called you a goat fucker? Mike didn’t call you a goat fucker, Techdirt didn’t call you a goat fucker, only I have been calling you a goat fucker.

So why do you think you have a constitutional right to sue Mike / Techdirt for something that I said myself in no relationship with Mike / Techdirt?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Leave a Reply to Chozen Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...