The First Amendment isn't a poison pill. We can still ask that propaganda not be called "news". You and I can't pay for and air a program of lies such as "Coca Cola turns your skin green." Why is Rupert Murdoch allowed to do so when I can't?
The First Amendment isn't a poison pill. We can still ask that propaganda not be called "news". You and I can't pay for and air a program of lies such as "Coca Cola turns your skin green." Why is Rupert Murdoch allowed to do so when I can't?
Yes, you very much can pay for and "air" a program like that. You can post it on YouTube right now. That doesn't mean Coke can't sue you for libel, but you most certainly can air it.
And "not calling" something news, or criticizing it by you and me is perfectly fine.
But when you start "regulating" speech, that's a very bad idea. Who's speech? Who decides what speech is "propaganda?"
The First Amendment isn't a poison pill. We can still ask that propaganda not be called "news". You and I can't pay for and air a program of lies such as "Coca Cola turns your skin green." Why is Rupert Murdoch allowed to do so when I can't?
Yes, you very much can pay for and "air" a program like that. You can post it on YouTube right now. That doesn't mean Coke can't sue you for libel, but you most certainly can air it.
And "not calling" something news, or criticizing it by you and me is perfectly fine.
But when you start "regulating" speech, that's a very bad idea. Who's speech? Who decides what speech is "propaganda?"