Ted Cruz, Mike Lee Join Dumb, Baseless GOP Quest To Pretend OAN Was Unfairly Censored
from the conspiratorial-gibberish dept
So we’ve already noted how OAN was booted off of the DirecTV lineup, severing a massive mainstream distribution avenue for the conspiracy and fantasy channel. DirecTV, recently spun off by AT&T, made the decision because the channel, despite all the attention, really wasn’t being watched very much.
Angry that a major source of GOP propaganda was no longer being pumped into millions of homes, both OAN and the GOP have been engaged in a silly quest to try and pretend that the decision was somehow unfair, censorial, or the result of partisan shenanigans.
First OAN had its anchors attack a Black AT&T board member and former Democratic FCC official, in a bizarre attempt to make it seem like DirecTV’s decision was politically and racially motivated. Then it filed suit against DirecTV, insisting that the dying satellite TV company was using its “unchecked influence and power” (lol) to “unlawfully destroy an independent, family-run business.”
Then six GOP AGs piled on, sending a letter to DirecTV accusing the company of trying to censor conservatives. It’s like a big tray of bullshit lasagna.
Now this week, Senators Mike Cruz and Mike Lee have tried their best to get their faces on TV as part of this stage play, penning a latter to AT&T accusing it of participating in a conspiracy with Dominion Voting Systems (which is currently suing OAN for spreading unfounded election fraud claims):
If you cannot see the embedded image, it’s a letter from Lee and Cruz to AT&T’s board of directors and reads as follows:
We write to you with grave concern for the future of journalism and political discourse in America. Specifically, the following facts have come to our attention:
1. One American News Network (“OANN”) is being sued for alleged defamation by Dominion Voting Systems.
2. Dominion Voting Systems is owned by Staple Street Capital.
3. William Kennard is on the executive board of Staple Street Capital.
4. William Kennard is also the Chairman of AT&T’s board of directors.
5. AT&T owns 70% of DirecTV, and controls two seats on DirecTV’s board of directors.
6. DirecTV has decided not to renew its contract with OANN.
These facts raise serious questions about the role of political influence in DirecTV’s programming decisions, as well as whether AT&T’s Chairman has allowed personal financial considerations to influence his oversight of a company in which AT&T holds a majority share–possibly in conflict with his fiduciary obligations to AT&T shareholders.
We request that you respond within 10 business days to the following question: Did any employee or agent of AT&T at any time convey or suggest to any employee or agent of DirecTV an instruction or request not to renew OANN?
We appreciate your urgent attention to this inquiry, and look forward to receiving your prompt reply.
In short, the dynamic duo imply that because William Kennard, the Chairman of AT&T’s board of directors, is also on the board of private equity firm Staple Street Capital (which owns Dominion Voting Systems), this must all be some grand conspiracy to kick OAN off of DirecTV, as if Kennard can single handedly determine all of AT&T’s business proposals by himself.
In reality, OAN was kicked off of DirecTV’s lineup because not that many people watch the channel. DirecTV was spun off by AT&T into a new joint venture with private equity firm TPG Capital, and the new leadership simply didn’t think the profitability to headache ratio was worth renewing a contract. That’s it.
Remember that AT&T not only funded the creation of OAN, reports suggest it came up with the idea. It only backed away from DirecTV because its bungled $200 billion megamerger spree left it desperate for cash. TPG came in, and the focus was obviously on greater fiscal responsibility.
Cable and broadcast executives aren’t the most ethical bunch. As your cable TV channel lineup makes pretty clear, they’ll air any old bullshit provided it makes them money and doesn’t get them into legal hot water. OAN not only wasn’t really particularly popular, its unhinged claims of electoral fraud and obnoxious COVID conspiracies made the channel not worth the trouble, even for them.
Even if DirecTV axed OAN because of its content, there’s nothing illegal there. There’s nothing requiring that DirecTV mandate viewpoint neutrality across its lineup. It’s the company’s prerogative as a business to do business with whoever they’d like, something the Conservative party, you might recall, used to prattle on about at great length about before their noggins were filled with Trump pudding.
An ordinary business decision got distorted into a grand conspiracy by the Trump GOP to agitate their increasingly conspiratorial base and feed the gibberish claim that the modern Trump GOP (whose rants, opinions, and conspiracies can be found absolutely everywhere, all the time) are somehow being unfairly silenced. It’s dumb victimization porn and propaganda all the way down.
Filed Under: cable news, cable tv, conspiracy theories, disinformation, election fraud, gop, mike lee, news, propaganda, ted cruz, trump, tv, william kennard
Companies: at&t, directv, oan, oann
Comments on “Ted Cruz, Mike Lee Join Dumb, Baseless GOP Quest To Pretend OAN Was Unfairly Censored”
That’s one sure thing you can count on with this dipshit duo. Whatever they do isn’t really going to make a lot of sense.
They acknowledge here AT&T owns 70% of DirecTV, and controls two seats on DirecTV’s board of directors.
But then ask Did any employee or agent of AT&T at any time convey or suggest to any employee or agent of DirecTV an instruction or request not to renew OANN?
Why would ‘yes’ seem to warrant any further investigation, given that AT&T owns the lion’s share of DirecTV? Are they not allowed to talk to each other for some reason?
Re:
I think what it boils down to is, the right wingers REALLY hate being ignored. They refuse to get the message that we don’t want to listen to their bullshit.
That letter is like 7 degrees of separation….
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: 1 Degree
Its 1 degree of separation. William Kennard is the chairman of the board at AT&T and the CEO of Street Staple Capital.
This causes major major legal issues form Anti-Trust to cooperate fiduciary duty.
Sad to say its all to common. We are closer to the late 19th century Trust barons than anytime before the Sherman anti-trust act.
Re: Re:
Still working your way to to figuring out the difference between a bar and state run housing I see.
Re: Re: Re:
Funny thing is that I found a modern pub that had recently shut down. Right on the window, it said “public house”. I also did some asking around, and apparently the guy was referencing public houses from Britain, and the term refers to the fact that, way back in the day, pubs and taverns were actually run out of people’s homes. There weren’t bartenders or anything like that. So they were literally houses open to the public, hence the name.
Anyways, the point is that “public house” still is used to refer to pubs/bars/taverns and is completely distinct from and unrelated to “public housing”. Contrary to what Chozen claims, the term “public house” still refers to modern bars and taverns, not just 15th-century ones or whatever.
Re: Re:
It’s potentially corporate governance issue, regardless of weather or not DTV carries OANN or not. If AT&T they does carry OANN, then William Kennard making decisions on is buying content from a company that’s being sued by another company he has investments in, one that could also potentially spill over to AT&T. Legally speaking with regard to fiduciary duties it might be in both AT&T and his best interest to sever ties between AT&T and OANN, before Dominion decides AT&T might be be subject to liability distributing OANN’s BS to it’s viewers.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, the other fiduciary duty would be to stop paying for something that isn’t making any money.
Is 1A still part of the Constitution?
Ted Cruz Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Constitution
This is clear evidence that this dipshit is a fraud and should be prosecuted as one as he either doesn’t understand the Constitution or doesn’t care.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Common Carrier?
I thought Satalite was a common carrier. I thought Mike has always said its fine to regulate common carriers but you cant do that to social media because social media is not like a common carrier and can’t be regulated like a common carrier.
Yet here we are. A common carrier did something you like so all that bull about common carrier was just a lie.
You just want anyone common carrier or not to be able to abuse power to censor views you dont like.
Re: Re:
A common carrier caries goods or people for any person or company, and bu extension telecoms. That is you can enaage and pay them to carry for you. A T.V. service is not a common carrier, but your broadband provider is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Actually No
You just make up stuff because your counter example is false.
The FCC under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 classified broadband as an “information service” and is actually not a common carrier.
So way to prove you just make stuff up.
Re: Re: Re:2
Broaband meets all the requirements for being classified as a common carrier, as it is the digital equivalent of a phone service. The fact that a corrupted regulator decided that it is not does not mean that it shouldn’t be classified as what it actually is.
Re: Re: Re:3
This would be relevant if DTV was blocking access to OAN’s internet sites, they’re not, they’ve stopped purchasing content from OAN for their TV programming , which legally is a different kettle of fish.
Re: Re: Re:2
[projects facts contrary to any and all evidence]
Re: Re: Re:2
Note that there was no basis anywhere in law or even the English language for Pai’s novel redefenitions of “information service” and “telecommunications service.”
Re: Re: Common Carrier Regulation...
Common Carrier is the wires that connect A to B. It exists purely so that AT&T is not in trouble because some random person says they want to do something bad and someone files a lawsuit against AT&T for delivering the dumb speech.
The Satellite signal Might come under common carrier. But in this case the transmission, content, and everything else is controlled by DirectTV, You just cant sue them over the signal containing whatever, but you can sure as heck sue over the content up the chain of DirectTV.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Telecomunications Act
Again the Telecommunications Act gives the covers all compunctions communications wired and wireless.
You just make shit up for the sake of argument.
Re: Re:
You’re right, if you redefine words to means something they don’t mean then misrepresent the words other people have said, it does look somewhat fishy.
Now, what are you trying to say – the the government needs to seize the means of production and force businesses to host money-losing content against their will for the benefit of a tiny and shrinking viewership? If so, why do you only advocate this for OAN and not all the other channels they’ve chosen to to have contracts with?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: It Is What the Law Says
A common carrier is whatever and act of congress or the states, or the FCC acting under the authority of the telecommunications act says it is.
In the telecommunications act of 1996 congress explicitly exempted cable providers from calcification by as common carriers but did not do so for satellite providers.
Re: Re: Re:2
Perhaps, there are a lot of caveats in declaring what a common carrier is. The important part is that you don’t get to declare what a common carrier is.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Yes They Do
These are US senators. Yes they do.
The person who doesn’t get to declare what a common carrier is, is Mike. Mike as a consultant for bigtech is acting in Mike’s best interest insisting lying his ass off and insisting that congress and the states don’t have authority that they clearly do.
Mike and his cohorts in BigTech have lost the should argument. The states are brining the hammer down on BigTech. So Mike is left making outrageous can arguments acting like these issues haven’t been litigated endlessly starting in the 19th century.
Now I personally love the state actions. I want to see some reel teeth to state laws and those laws incorporated into state’s civil rights code so people like Mike can be perpwalked, flown to Texas, Florida etc. and face trial for conspiracy to violate state civil rights code in places like the Texas and Florida panhandles.
One of the hardest parts of enforcing basic law against BigTech is jurisdiction in the Northern California where almost all federal and state judges are inexorably tied to the industry and do whatever they can to protect it. Northern California is like early to mid 19th century Connecticut where it was impossible to find a judge that would enforce the Atlantic slave trade act on the Connecticut shipping industry. Getting jurisdiction away from those judges is a crucial component in holding the Mike’s of the world accountable for violating everyone else’s rights.
Re: Re: Re:4
You really should seek professional help, public meltdowns and hate-fantasies is a sure sign of declining mental health.
Re: Re: Re:4
Technically, no. The FCC can. More importantly, it has to be consistent with what the words actually mean for it to not be an infringement of the 1A, as that carve-out was determined by the US Supreme Court.
No one said he does. Because you can’t just “declare” something a common carrier and that makes it so, at least with regards to 1A jurisprudence and FCC authority.
You keep saying he’s a consultant, but I still see no evidence of that.
No, they don’t clearly have that authority. You asserting that they do doesn’t automatically make it so.
More importantly, even if they can declare something a “common carrier”, that doesn’t automatically mean they are one for the purpose of the “common carrier” exception to the 1A. Something can be X for the purposes of one law but not for another.
[citation needed], both for losing the “should argument” (and what that even is) and for Mike having “cohorts in Big Tech”.
They are trying, but they are not succeeding.
Mike has made the “can” arguments from the very beginning. And he’s still making “should” arguments as well.
I mean, the internet didn’t exist back then, so no, it hasn’t, but even if it had, that would be evidence against your position, not in favor of it.
Doesn’t matter. They are unconstitutional.
That’s not how it works. Stating that a law is or would be unconstitutional or has been suspended by the courts is not a conspiracy to violate those laws. Also, you can’t make laws retroactive like that.
Even if this was true (which it isn’t), it’s irrelevant. There are appellate courts as well, you know, and the 9th Circuit is not controlled by Northern California, nor is the US Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court.
And what rights has Mike violated and how, exactly? And whose rights are being violated? Be specific, and bring actual evidence, not just bald assertions.
Re: Re:
If you’re talking about voice and data services over satellite then, yes, those would be common carrier-type services. DirecTV is more akin to a cable TV package. It costs DTV money to carry it, why should they be required to subsidize OAN’s existence? Bandwidth is not unlimited, they can only carry so many channels on the satellites. Do you think Comcast should be forced to carry every single channel in existence? If not then why should DTV have to?
Re: Re:
You’re confusing two very different things. In the case of ISPs like AT&T’s broadband services, the ISP gets paid both for access to the content being sent over the internet through its services and for the ability to send content out to others over the internet. All that the ISP does is transmit the content. Nothing more. Thus, just like a telephone company, it acts as a common carrier.
By contrast, a cable/satellite TV service like what’s provided by DirectTV gets paid by viewers for access to content provided by the company, and the company pays stations like OAN for the content created by that station. This means that DirectTV isn’t just the conduit for but also a publisher of the content. Basically, it’s more like the newspaper publishing a letter to the editor than a phone company connecting two phones and transmitting content between them. As such, DirectTV is not a common carrier in this particular case.
You cite the “must carry” provision of the Communications Acr, but that has little or nothing to do with being a common carrier. Rather, that’s based upon the limited availability of spectrum available for content to be broadcasted over the airwaves. It also solely covers stations that are licensed by the FCC to be broadcasted over public spectrum (as opposed to private airwaves like for privately owned satellites) that have been specifically designated as must-carry by the FCC, and in order to qualify, the station must be a local station, not a national station. Even then, it’s only required to be carried in specific areas within which the station has significant viewership, not the entire country. OAN doesn’t fall under these requirements, and the contract with DirectTV wasn’t for specific areas, and DirectTV doesn’t use the airwaves that are intended for free access.
So even if you were right about must-carry applying here, that has nothing to do with net neutrality (which is where the common-carrier argument comes into play), so there’s no contradiction there, but you’re also wrong that must-carry would apply here.
And note that neither any of these Republicans nor OAN are even claiming that OAN is or should be must-carry under that law or that DirectTV is a common carrier under the law. This is a pretty good indicator that even they don’t think your argument is correct.
Re: Re: Re: Stupid
” (as opposed to private airwaves like for privately owned satellites)”
Again same stupid idea Mike had. DirectTV doesn’t own the spectrum it uses. They own a government issued license to use the spectrum for a set number of years. Owning a spectrum license and owning the spectrum are very different things.
Actually the fact that the use of the spectrum is licensed adds a whole other angle for regulation. The government is free to add all kinds of caveats through licensing. You dipshits forget that many “bans” are actually licensing acts. A 50 Cal M2 isn’t “banned” its just very very hard to get a license for one.
Re: Re: Re:2
Even if you are right, that still wouldn’t prove your claims. Again: that law is only about local broadcasts, and it’s only for content that gets a significant number of views within that location precisely because broadcasters have to pay the station for its content, not the other way around.
Again: no one involved in this claims that the “must carry” provision of that law applies here.
And it still means that you were wrong to conflate “common carrier” with “must carry”, as those are two completely different things.
And as for forgetting that many “bans” are actually licensing acts, no, we aren’t. What you don’t seem to realize is that it only further demonstrates that the common carrier thing is completely separate from “must carry” laws.
Re:
…not understanding the Constitution isn’t illegal.
Lucky for you.
As a citizen of the state of Utah, Mike Lee is an embarrassment. It’s just too bad there are more GQP members here than not. It assures him reelection.
Republicans love the free market, until it bites them in the ass. Then they hate it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike's Misfits
Mike’s Misfits when government wants to regulate social media as a common carrier.
Mike’s Misfits – Social media is not like Radio, TV, Cable and Satellite. Those are common carriers that use public airwaves and wire. Social media is not like those things so you cannot regulate social media like those common carriers.
Mikes Misfits when a common carrier does something they like.
Mike’s Misfits – How dare the republicans thin that they can tell any company what they can do.
Re:
Is DirecTV able to remove channels at all, or are they required to carry any channel that wants carriage?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: What Ever the Hell the Law Says
As a common carrier using public airwaves launched from permitted satellites launched into orbit in the public space DirectTV must carry whomever the law made by the public government says.
Mike’s misfits cant just change their entire case against common carrier regulation of social media when an legally recognized common carrier does something they like.
It defeats the fundamental argument of this entire blog you dolt!
Re: Re: Re:
Just because TV uses the public airwaves does not make it a common carrier. It cannot comply with the basic rules of common carriers, and that is carry whatever anybody prepared to pay the wants them to carry.
The only grounds for regulating over the air and satellite T.V. is that they are using a scarce resource. That does mean that public interest can be used to force them to carry, or more commonly not carry certain content, but they cannot be turned into a common carrier where anybody can demand that they carry the program the person has made.
Re: Re: Re:2 Carrier
Common Carrier only covers the communication channel itself from point A to B. The content creator and publisher have always been reasonable and may be the same party who owns the communication channel.
Re: Re: Re:3
Common carrier is not a magic incantation that can be used to force a company or service to comply with your wishes, especially when they are not in the business of carrying from a to b for any individual that asks and can pay for their services.
Re: Re: Re:
Please cite the law/statute/“common law” court precedent that says the government can legally force any and every cable/satellite provider to carry any channel, including (but not limited to) OANN, only because the channel asked to be carried. Be specific and provide proper context.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Must Carry
Do we have to go over “must carry” again. Quit sealioning you stupid sissy.
Re: Re: Re:3
Here’s a thing you’re forgetting:
Satellite and Cable TV is a one-way medium. That is, the station can beam into my room, but I can’t beam into the station. Meanwhile, on the internet, if someone made a video of their own content I could respond or react to it (subject to moderation, of course). TV is a one-way medium and that’s why it’s not a common carrier. The internet (i.e. access to the internet, not specific places on the internet) is a common carrier because it’s not a one-way medium.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Immaterial
That’s completely and totally immaterial as it relates to the Communications Acts and FCC regulations.
Its distinction without difference arguments. You are franticly trying to come up with excuses.
Re: Re: Re:5
Then please cite the law/statute/court precedent that says the government can force a cable/satellite provider to carry OANN.
Re: Re: Re:6
In the unlikely event that OANN were to receive an FCC license and operate a broadcast TV station in a given local area, then the “must carry” rule would come into play; the station could opt to require local cable providers to carry it. In doing so, it would forgo any revenue from the cable provider; a station can charge the cable operator for its content, or it can opt for “must carry.” It cannot do both. The “must carry” rule does not require a given cable operator to carry the local station’s content outside that station’s broadcast footprint.
I am led to believe that there are some Sinclair-owned stations that have opted for “must carry”, which is odious enough, but I’m not aware of any local over-the-air broadcast station owned, operated or affiliated with OANN.
In no case would the “must carry” rule apply to a satellite provider.
Re: Re: Re:7
Under some conditions must carry can apply to a satellite provider. Regardless, one of the basic conditions for must carry is that the channel in question need a “significant viewership” to begin with.
Re: Re: Re:3
Maybe, just maybe, you should actually point to concrete proof backing up the arguments you are trying to make. You come in here and make all these grandiose arguments, but NOT A SINGLE TIME have you ever provided any links, citations, court cases, NOTHING to back up your arguments.
Just admit it, you’re a 4’6″ idiot who is just smart enough to wipe your own ass.
Re: Re: Re:4
> you’re a 4’6″ idiot who is just smart enough to wipe your own ass.
But enough about Ben Shapiro…
Re: Re: Re:3
Plaintiff argued that the government can force DirecTV to carry OANN or any other channel. But on direct questioning Plaintiff offered no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition.
The Complaint is summarily dismissed.
Re: Re: Re:3
17 U.S. Code § 122 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Secondary transmissions of local television programming by satellite
17 U.S. Code § 122(a)(2) – Significantly Viewed Stations: **
*(A) In general.—
A secondary transmission of a performance or display of a work embodied in a primary transmission of a television broadcast station to subscribers who receive secondary transmissions of primary transmissions under paragraph (1) shall be subject to statutory licensing under this paragraph if the secondary transmission is of the primary transmission of a network station or a non-network station to a subscriber who resides outside the station’s local market but within a community in which the signal has been **determined by the Federal Communications Commission to be significantly viewed in such community, pursuant to the rules, regulations, and authorizations of the Federal Communications Commission in effect on April 15, 1976, applicable to determining with respect to a cable system whether signals are significantly viewed in a community.*
TL;DR: Must carry hinges on a channel having a significant viewership.
Re: Re: Re:4
Also note the header of that section of law: “Secondary transmissions of local television programming by satellite”. OANN is hardly the same thing as your local CBS station.
Re: Re: Re:5
Exactly. Neither OANN or DirectTV fulfills the prerequisites for must carry.
(I see I borked both my name and the bolding when I posted)
Re: Re: Re:3
Oh look, yet another word you don’t comprehend the meaning of.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, not the Wehraboos arguing about how Nazi Germany could have carried out a naval invasion of Britain without an actual navy!
Re: Re: Re:3
Quit trying to beg him he’s not gonna fuck your for money or pity.
Re: Re: Re:
“We want less government telling corporations what to do. …No, not like that!” – Chozen
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Never Said That
I know the standard tactic of the left is to create this “john birch society” strawman of the right. But that is not reality. Its just your delusional fantasy.
I’ve ready Adam Smith you cant bullshit me. Conservativism and market capitalisms has always advocated for government regulation of the private. The Wealth of Nations is directed at out of control corporations.
So shut the fuck up you ignorant douche.
Re: Re: Re:3
Up until the point when the government recommended wearing masks, at which you ivermectin guzzlers absolutely lost your shit.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, given the amount of bullshit that Chozen and their ilk are willing to swallow on a recurring basis, it actually might not be the worst idea to partake a proper dosage of Ivermectin at the recommended deworming intervals to get rid of a possible infestation. It can cause an inflammatory reaction however when the treated patient is just too full of it.
Re: Re: Re:3 That’s how you do an insult
“ So shut the fuck up you ignorant douche.”
Well at least you’ve moved up to grade school insults even if they are at the basic bitch level.
Here let me try. Your daddy left the best part of you running down your whore moms leg and the only regret he ever had was that he paid ten whole buck for that and that bitch gave him the herp.
Re: Re: Re:4
While I understand the urge to sink to his level, surely you can at least do better than insulting his parentage, even if indirectly. Especially since, for all we know, his parents might be rolling their eyes at this guy’s arguments.
Basically, I expected better from your grade-school insults. 😉
Re: Re: Re:3
The ironic part is that if he even checked, Techdirt was, at one point, financed by the Charles Koch Foundation, ie, one of his “allies”.
Re: Re: Re:3
Then start quoiting the relevant parts of Adam Smith as it pertains to this.
Re: Re: Re:3
> But that is not reality.
You wouldn’t recognize reality when it slapped your stupid face. Comes from putting fingers in your ears and shouting lalala – I can’t hear you.
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, the government could have passed a law that forced Fox not to cancel Firefly?!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 So Stupid
Fox isn’t the common carrier. The satellite service provider is. The channel is the editor and the one that enjoys first Amendment protections.
Re: Re: Re:3
You defined DirecTV as “a common carrier using public airwaves launched from permitted satellites”
Fox uses public airwaves transmitted from permitted towers.
Those sound pretty similar to me. Why then is one a common carrier and not the other?
Re: Re: Re:4
Because he’s a lying fuck who painted himself in a corner. If you point out the obvious contradictions in his bullshit, he moves on to another comment and gets on with the insults.
Re: Re: Re:3
Let me explain this simply: If OAN was a local news station with significant viewership in the entire country that was specifically designated as must-carry by the FCC (which it isn’t) or was paying DirectTV to be broadcast to its viewers (which it isn’t), then you might have a point.
Here’s the thing: the act you’re referring to was intended for significant local news stations (i.e. those that wouldn’t be losing the broadcaster money if they carry it and which have a geographically limited audience (hence “local”)), not for national news networks that cost the broadcaster more money than it’s worth in terms of viewership numbers.
Additionally, the contract that wasn’t renewed wasn’t a case where OAN is saying, “I’ll pay you [DirectTV] X amount of money to have access to your satellites,” but instead more of a case of DirectTV saying, “I’ll pay you [OAN] for access to your content.”
Re: Re: Re:
No, the law doesn’t say that they must carry whomever – the law has specific criterias that defines when common carriage comes into play.
Nobody has changed their entire case, it’s just that you are too fucking stupid to realize that the definition for common carrier according to the law doesn’t fit interactive internet services. You are of course free to cite any relevant case-law that says otherwise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“No, the law doesn’t say that they must carry whomever – the law has specific carrier that defines when common carriage comes into play.”
These are United States Senators. They have every right to make inquires and enact regulation necessary to put the boot up satellite providers ass if they want.
As a common carrier these companies have next to zero first Amendment Protections.
See this is the Mike’s Misfits problem. Mike works in big tech. Mikes side has lost the “should” argument. So Mike and his misfits now frantically make can arguments.
Instead of a reasoned ‘you shouldn’t do that and here is why argument.’ Mike now shifts the debate to ‘You cant do that because its unconstitutional.’ Of course this isn’t true and hasn’t been true for almost a century. All these issues were adjudicated at the turn of the 20th century.
The government has every legal right to do what Mike is saying that they cant do. Mike and his misfits have to make a cant argument because they have absolutely lost the should argument.
Re: Re: Re:3
If this is true, for what reason hasn’t the government already forced DirecTV to re-carry OANN?
Re: Re: Re:4 Funny how much table pounding they are doing
As the saying goes…
If the law is on your side, pound on the law.
If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound on the table.
Re: Re: Re:3
What about constitutional limits on their powers?
Re: Re: Re:4
Republican lawmakers, probably: What about constitutional limits on our powers?
Re: Re: Re:3
Except they’re not common carriers,DYV is -paying- OAN for content, not OAN paying DTV for distribution. DYVis perfectly free to stop buying from OAN, and given the Dominion lawsuit, they have ample reason to drop them, lest they get caught up in the legal consequences of OAN’s recless disregard for the truth.
Re: Re: Re:
As a common carrier using public airwaves launched from permitted satellites launched into orbit in the public space DirectTV must carry whomever the law made by the public government says.
So yes then, DirecTV can drop whomever they want.
That settles it.
Re: Re: Re:
The existence of the formerly contract between Direct TV and OAN, whereby Direct TV pays OAN ( and not the other way around) rather speaks against Direct TV being a Common Carrier obligated to carry OAN.
Re: Re: Re:2
In fact it is not being paid that is extremely concerning for OAN, they can’t see how to keep going without that money.
Re: Re: Re:
The problem with that argument is this is not a case of OAN engaging DTV to distribute their content, like a train moving OAN’s DVD shipment. This is a case of DTV purchasing content from OAN to distribute to their customers, DTV is simply deciding not to purchase any more content, from OAN like a blockbuster buying more movies from OAN.
Re: Re:
That depends, but one of the metrics used to determine if a channel can rely on common carriage is the size of its viewership (ie is there a significant public interest). OANN has according to the latest stats on average 14,000 viewers (out of a possible ~23 million).
If it was otherwise, anyone could claim common carriage even if their channel only had for example 10 viewers which would place an undue burden on the carrier.
Re:
You know, other people can read the posts you’re lying about?
Re:
Dude, just GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE. You went way overboard with your gay rape fantasies in the last thread about OAN.
You are just a pure piece of human garbage and do not deserve a voice at the same place that mature adults like to converse.
Re:
Did “‘Mike’s misfits’ only stick consistently to true facts and law, unlike me” sound devastating in your empty head?
Re: Re:
It’s kind of sad that he can’t even think up a new name to use on each different comments section. Even I try to change up the name I use for him instead of sticking with one variant.
Re:
It’s almost as if everyone here (other than you) is consistent in their (correct) view that the government cannot compel companies to host speech they disagree with. And while there are a few, very narrow, well defined and well limited exceptions, none of them come even remotely close to being applicable here, despite your claims.
I mean, for all your bluster about “common carrier” (which only serves to show you have no idea what that means), note that OAN’s lawsuit against AT&T never once uses the phrase “common carrier.” Could at be that perhaps your legal argument that this is about “common carriers” is… not true? Or did OANN hire even dumber lawyers than everyone originally suspected.
Re: Crybaby Chozens about to spit the dummy
Gonna start throw another little tantrum boi?
Re:
“Social media is not like Radio, TV, Cable and Satellite. Those are common carriers that use public airwaves and wire.”
– except Radio, TV, Cable and Satellite are not common carriers, common carriers would be the telephone system, railways, and postal system, and arguably internet service providers.
ah, yes. party of small government
Clearly Republicants are all about small government.
Isn’t this actual/valid as trade secrets, as well?
Re: The party of It is only okay when I do it
Modern day republicans seem to want a government small enough that no-one can tell them what to do but just large enough that they can use it to tell everyone else what to do.
Between this and the whole Jackson fiasco, I guess Ted Cruz is trying to earn the title of “Weenie of the Week.” I mean that wouldn’t be surprising for someone who’s the Zodiac Killer.
That image of the crazy guy with the strings connecting all the things dot gif.
Perhaps he is just trying to hold onto his man card since an upcoming Prayers of Jews event he is attending is at the same time & hotel as a Bear Run (big hairy men & their male admirers).
Re:
> That image of the crazy guy with the strings connecting all the things dot gif.
[Frickin’ Pepe Silvia, man.](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/pepe-silvia)
😁
Re: Re:
I have no idea why Markdown didn’t work on that.
Re: Re: Re:
Your use of a single ‘ probably messed it up..
And that scene is *awesome*.
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. Somewhere this evening markdown stopped working entirely for the comments… I have sent in a bug report, but not sure how long until it will be fixed… but that is a little frustrating (he says as we’re still cleaning up lots of other bugs from the platform transition…)
At will…
table flip emoji
GOP Quest is the worst video game ever
You just run around town yelling stuff and stopping everyone else from getting started on their actual quests.
Re: nobody can play that game
only pirates play that game. It’s encrusted with so much drm that you can’t even play it, even though it’s a free game.
Re: Re: Quite contrary,
the GOP is actually much more interested in Digital Lefties Management.
Common carrier
The lawsuit by OAN against AT&T doesn’t raise common carriage issues at all. While it’s not my field, this suggests that there is no even colorable common carriage argument to be made, or they’d be making it. I would note that common carriage puts limits on a carrier’s right to refuse carriage but does not necessarily prevent them from refusing carriage entirely. Courier services can reject packages for improper packaging, for example, and airlines can reject passengers for being unruly or otherwise disruptive. It’s entirely possible that OAN doesn’t qualify for whatever regulations other channels might enjoy that give them a way to fight being dropped. Or that the analogy that telecommunications businesses are common carriers (a concept that is based on freight hauling) is not all that accurate.
Perhaps someone better versed with telecommunications laws and regulations can provide some citations relevant to this matter?
Re:
A common carrier offer carriage services to any third party, T.V services have only ever offered service to selected third parties, and that difference means that they are not common carriers.
Now if only Dish would dump them. My mother has taken to watching the trash channel and is getting lost in the idiocy.
“Trump pudding”. Awesome.
Re:
No no no, it’s Trump pooting. His devoted following thinks they’re the most brain-boosting bottom burps since Rush Limbaugh’s wafts of wisdom.
Ah the hoops some people have to jump through to avoid having to admit that not only are their positions toxic and/or deranged only a relatively small handful of people even care about them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Actually, this request not invalid.
I’m really, really wishing “Common Carrier” had made it into the Legal Misunderstanding playoffs this year. The discussion here would have given it a sure win for several bracket wins.
Ah, well. There’s always next year.
You know what? Even if AT&T decided to come out and flatly say “ Yes we dropped OAN because it on the political right and we don’t like that” – They’re entitled to do that by the First Admendment
Att sold most of its media assets, it seems likely the new direct TV decided its not worth carrying a low audience tv station that is spreading false weird conspiracy theory’s
TV stations are constantly dropping even good programs that don’t get a large audience or don’t attract young viewers under 40 that’s how business and capitalism works
Republicans love to portray themselves as being censored or being victims of Liberal mass media complex censorship even though they have fox news and Facebook social media and plenty of media outlets that support Conservative voices
Fox news is on cable TV because it has a large audience at least in terms of a news channel
Its easy
You can have all the info of whats happening and how to fix something Infront of you, But its hard to find as others tend to Cover it up and BS.
https://scontent.fboi1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/276277710_5181889351878505_4977222453429937417_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=THddHyf_vyQAX9P-KF1&_nc_ht=scontent.fboi1-1.fna&oh=00_AT8Cm0OB5Gw7h6TPTYm2WseZmQITxVdwNiAo0ahKrRPovw&oe=624308DB
WE have become dissuaded from seeking truth as there is so Much BS, and to many idiots trying to persuade us to do as they like. Looking back at the Old Sunday TV Church, and the BS that happened to send allot of them to jails. How many people sent in money, because they asked?
Are there any REAL laws against those the Spew BS, and how to Judge this as Beyond a Suggestion. As an Opinion IS what they think is true, even after they may/may not know the facts.
We have tested our Children in schools many times for intelligence, but NEVER our political persons.
Re:
John Oliver would like to never remember that he started a TV religious organization ever again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
All
Since all censorship is unfair, why are you writing articles making fun of those who protest unfair censorship? Why are you defending the right of someone to say fuck the police but celebrating the censorship of the right?
Why do you tie your shoes? The cognitive dissonance is strong in this one, Luke.
Re:
Trump lost. Shiva Ayyadurai lost. Get over yourself.
Re:
Ending a contract is not censorship.
Re:
You and Chozen should honestly consider get a room together, preferably the sort with all the BDSM equipment considering you two have such an affinity for gay rape.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Not My Type
Like I said before I prefer effeminate twinks and sissies. I doubt he is my type.
You guys act like you are for equal rights but the moment someone from the LBGT community starts talking honestly you homophobes flip out.
Re: Re: Re:
An accurate summation of your kinks and preferences, which you personally admitted and agreed to, is not homophobia.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Dips
You dip@#$ said sissy was a gay slur and called sissies trans.
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t know where you’re reading these claims, but my understanding of the sissy movement is convincing white males to worship big black cocks and bombarding them with images to convince them of their beta positions.
Whether that’s your preference is frankly not something anyone is invested in beyond the recommendation that you and restless should get a room. I couldn’t give a fuck which one of you plays the small spoon, rides the vaulting horse or performs the urethral insertion when you dock.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 You Watch Too Much Gay Porn
You watch too much gay porn. Most sissies aren’t that into black guys. The whole BBC thing is for losers who watch too much porn straight, gay or bi.
Re: Re: Re:5
Do you have diploma that says “Sissie-expert” in addition to your other ones?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 Great Idea
No, but thank you for the idea. I can do the whole schtick at the next week’s dragshow and after party. I got a fag hag flying in for fun she will get an absolute kick out of it.
Thanks for the reminder too. I had completely forgotten to get tickets and they go quick. Booked … phew!
Re: Re: Re:7
Don’t forget to wipe the Trump off your face.
Re:
Because those protesting unfair censorship are a) complaining about moderation, not censorship; or b) fail to offer any evidence that it was actually censorship that actually happened.
Re:
“Why are you defending the right of someone to say fuck the police but celebrating the censorship of the right?”
If you cannot see the difference between earned scorn and attacking the innocent you have no morals other than what you want is what should be.
Re:
OOps, should be a reply to restless.
If OAN is such a profitable and desired channel, why doesn’t it just do an online show, or see if they can can picked up on a streaming service? I mean, doesn’t that potentially get them a larger market?
I thought the fiduciary responsibility was to make money for the shareholders. If the channel isn’t doing that, or worse, costing them money, they have no choice but to drop the channel. I don’t know shit about corporate finance or stocks, or common carriers outside of net neutrality, so maybe I’m wrong. But I don’t think it’s really any more complicated than profitable = keep, unprofitable= drop.
I never realized Ted Cruz is a ranking member on the subcommittee of the Constitution. I always thought he was a reeking member.
Cruz
Ted Cruz.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Update
Update:
It appears that the involvement of the University of North Carolina’s involvement in the development of SARS COVID-2 is becoming more and more of a reality as reposted by The Hill this morning. Now as it stands this involvement maybe unwitting but they played a huge role none the less.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG32f-OU9p4
Re:
Unrelated to the story at hand. If you have a story, submit it to the people running the site. If you want to talk about SARS-COVID 2, do it somewhere that is talking about it.