Comment by mmooss
6 hours ago
> obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted
That's not at all obvious to me. On what grounds, moral or legal, should the US government tell anyone what to publish or promote?
6 hours ago
> obviously the US government has a say in what gets published and promoted
That's not at all obvious to me. On what grounds, moral or legal, should the US government tell anyone what to publish or promote?
I read what you quoted as a matter of fact statement, not an assertion of what is ethically righteous
But with that, I don't agree that it's a fact, maybe the FCC regulates what you broadcast on radio and TV, but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is created or prompted AFAIK. Journalists in the press pool may trade subservience for access but that's about it.
> but if you don't take federal funding, the government doesn't really have a pull in what is
Paying chills is anti-democratic. In France, 100% of the media you know is subsidized, and it is unsustainable to do journalism without state sponsorship: France is not a democracy.
Fight me all you want, shower me with Alex Jonesy accusations, or nazi affiliations, but that’s why I wish the left would lose more elections. And it’s 51% of us now.
Just - be - honest - with - media.
It can make laws that prohibit or discourage publishing certain content. It can also shape the discourse in such a way that these laws are not viewed as restrictions on free speech.