Free Speech In Broadcasting, Cable, And Satellite Media
According to a news report I read Fox News refused to run an ad that was critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito because it's lawyers claims the spot is factually incorrect. The ad is a half truth, but that is a complaint I have with news from all media sources including Fox News. I also understand they have size constraints on both the news and ad content. Fox News of course is self regulatory, and its commercial space is not a public forum, so they can limit what they show.
The news article I am using as a source states that "The ad says that as an appellate court judge, Alito has ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate ... even voted to approve a strip search of a 10-year-old girl. " I understand from that evidence that the ad is using the obviously preferred method of the left for an emotional appeal vs. a rational appeal, and makes the assumption that there is no reason to strip search a ten year old child. It neglects to mention the situation under which the strip search occurred.
The ad addresses a 2004 decision made by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that ruled whether under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant for the search of property included the inhabitants of within the boundaries of that specific area. The majority said no, while Alito said yes.
I agree with Alito as the majority’s decision sounds like it was based on the letter of the law, and is oppressive of constitutional powers of the police to establish justice, and promote the general welfare. On the other hand Alito’s decision appears to be based on the spirit, and if it oppresses anyone it is those found at the scenes of crimes and not the vast majority of Americans. I will go into both more thoroughly later in other posts.
In conclusion, though I oppose the ad and support Fox News property rights I would be for cable, broadcast, satellite television, and radio becoming a public forum regulated by the government. This is so all Americans could have free speech in those mediums. Since it is not currently so, we must deal with it being corporately owned and regulated until Congress chooses to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by regulating it.
The news article I am using as a source states that "The ad says that as an appellate court judge, Alito has ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate ... even voted to approve a strip search of a 10-year-old girl. " I understand from that evidence that the ad is using the obviously preferred method of the left for an emotional appeal vs. a rational appeal, and makes the assumption that there is no reason to strip search a ten year old child. It neglects to mention the situation under which the strip search occurred.
The ad addresses a 2004 decision made by the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that ruled whether under the Fourth Amendment, a warrant for the search of property included the inhabitants of within the boundaries of that specific area. The majority said no, while Alito said yes.
I agree with Alito as the majority’s decision sounds like it was based on the letter of the law, and is oppressive of constitutional powers of the police to establish justice, and promote the general welfare. On the other hand Alito’s decision appears to be based on the spirit, and if it oppresses anyone it is those found at the scenes of crimes and not the vast majority of Americans. I will go into both more thoroughly later in other posts.
In conclusion, though I oppose the ad and support Fox News property rights I would be for cable, broadcast, satellite television, and radio becoming a public forum regulated by the government. This is so all Americans could have free speech in those mediums. Since it is not currently so, we must deal with it being corporately owned and regulated until Congress chooses to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity by regulating it.
posted by Kerwin | 9:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home