[chiefalchemist]

Nah. The 1st Amendment does not protect shouting "fire" in a movie theater. As coveted as it might be, the 1st A doesn't give license to a free for all of junk food. There are licensing for plumbers, electricians and hair stylists. __None__ of those are essentials to a healthy democracy.

There is also the legal concept of false advertising. If you're saying (objective) "news" and it's (subjective) editorial, then that's clearly false advertising.

This wasn't the most exciting things I ever read, but it was helpful.

"Freedom for the Thought That We Hate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_W...

re: "News, editorials, and political commentary are nothing at all like the ingredient list on the back of your soda can."

One, this is editorial pure.

Two, it's also false. We know that you are what you consume. Whether that's what goes in your mouth, your lungs, up your nose, or into your brain.

Is you can't label Aspartame as sugar, then why should editorial being called news be allowed? Context matters.

[kaendfinger]

The "fire" in a movie theater argument is a horse than has been beaten to death for so long, and I seriously doubt anyone who says this phrase knows it's history, or even cares to think for themselves about how much of a cliche it is.

[chiefalchemist]

The point is, cliche or not, not all speech is 100% protected 100% of the time. That myth is bigger than the fire myth is cliche.

[pnw_hazor]

There are different kinds of speech.

Commercial speech, such as, advertising has less protection than most other forms of speech.

Political speech (AKA news) is the most protected speech.

[nugi]

But News is very much commercial speech as well, if not moreso than political.

[pnw_hazor]

A news organization maybe a commercial venture, but news is not commercial speech.

Advertising, product labels, or advertisement signs are examples of commercial speech.

[chiefalchemist]

But. You're in the weeds. They saying "we're news" and they're not. It's 90% editorial.

As for the actual content and their right to say it? It's their right. It's protected. But selling snake oil as a cure for cancer? That's the issue.

[zaroth]

Who is “they”? You mean the New York Times, right?

But in all seriousness, freedom of the press doesn’t imply it has to be purely factual or completely objective. The press is free to analyze, opine, ridicule, and rile their audience however they decide to. And they can even call it “fair and balanced” or tell me it’s “fit to print” if they want to, because these are subjective terms describing their opinion in a field expressly exempt from regulation.

In other words, about as far from selling a fake cure to cancer as you can get.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

[jakebasile]

People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

With the regularity I see it parroted I very much hope the former is more common than the latter.

As to the proposal of labeling content, who decides what is news and what isn't? The government? What agency and how will that agency be staffed and regulated? What redress does an outlet have if they feel they are unjustly labeled because their opinion differs from that censor board?

What if it's not a government body but an industry body? Many of the same issues apply since the majority will have power over the minority. This particular mode of self-censorship has precedent, as the movie, video game, and music industries created their own censor boards in lieu of government regulation (MPAA, ESRB, RIAA).

[thaumasiotes]

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

I don't follow this entire line of thought. As with your parent comment:

>> Before you use "Fire in a theater" argument, please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

"THEREFORE, any idea supported by this argument is a bad idea"?

How can the provenance of the argument be relevant?

[dragonwriter]

> Is the thought supposed to be "this argument was once used to support a bad thing. THEREFORE, this argument is invalid"? That can't be right.

No, the “fire in a crowded theater” thing isn't an argument, it's a claim about the law often used as a premise in other arguments.

The problem with that claim is that it's a claim about the application of Constitutional law and limits to free speech in a particular fact pattern that was dicta unsupported by prior case law offered as part of the explanation for a decision which has itself since been overturned as inappropriately limiting freedom of speech in a way directly contrary to the core purpose of the Constitutional protection.

That is:

* It was not a statement of the law grounded in valid authority,

* It wouldn't be valid authority on the law itself even if the decision it was articulated in was valid authority, and

* The case it was articulated in is, in fact, no longer valid authority.

Therefore, any argument which takes it as a premise stands on sand, as the premise is unsupported.

[thaumasiotes]

None of your comment makes any sense as a defense of the comments I asked about. They go:

> please be aware that quote comes from a Supreme Court decision basically allowing the government to imprison someone publishing anti-war opinion.

and

> People that use this quote to justify censorship must be in two camps. Those that are ignorant of the provenance of the quote and how it was and could be misused, and those that know it and are looking to censor as long as the idea bring censored is disagreeable to their own.

Nothing about either of those claims would change if Schenck had been written right into the constitution. Schenck would still be a decision allowing the government to imprison someone for sedition, and people using the quote to justify censorship would still tautologously be divisible into those who know the provenance and are looking to justify censorship, and those who don't know the provenance and are looking to justify censorship.

But while both comments would be just as valid in that hypothetical world as they are now, your comment in their defense would be completely wrong. You appear to be defending a point that neither party I responded to was even interested in making. I conclude that those two original comments are worthless, because they have no bearing on anything relevant.

[jakebasile]

The provenance shows what the argument can be and has been used to justify - censorship of thoughts deemed unacceptable by people in a position of power.

[zaroth]

Yes there are licenses to ensure safety and compliance for plumbers, electricians, and hair stylists. And if I understand what I'm reading, some people here calling for similar "licensing" for anyone who wants to report the "news". While I'm in favor of the former, I am strictly and uncompromisingly against the latter.

Freedom of the press, the freedom to report on the news, opine on the news, and editorialize the news, in my mind is sacrosanct. "Incorrectly" reporting the news is not false advertising, and I would strongly hope that any attempt to license, monitor, or censor any news outlets (no matter how ragtag or unpopular) would be shot down hard by the 1st, barring the well established limits around direct incitement of violence.

Ingredient lists are a public safety measure. People with food allergies eat a mislabeled product and they die. People with an allergy to Fox news can change the channel and listen to CNN if they so choose. There isn't a 1st amendment right to sell someone a product (like a can of soda) and lie to them about what is in it.

I can debate the merits of any article from the New York Times, the Washington Post, or even Breitbart. I can debate how much an article in any of those publications seek to neutrally inform, or seeks to present a specific viewpoint, or seeks to outright persuade its readers of what to think. Reasonable people will disagree emphatically in such a debate.

But no reasonable person can disagree that the can of Coke Zero sitting next to me contains; Carbonated water, caramel color, phosphoric acid, aspartame, potassium benzoate, natural flavors, potassium citrate, acesulfame potassium, and caffeine.

Watch 5 minutes of news coverage of Comey's book on each of the major networks. Now tell me which were news and which were editorial. Spoiler alert: It's a rorschach test. Even objective news is not free of characterization and choice of diction which colors the facts being reported. Newsrooms have editors for a reason. Even the choice of which facts to report and which not is an editorial decision which must be made when reporting the news.

So I submit there can be no news that is entirely free and devoid of editorial. To report on Comey's book, you would have to sit in front of the camera and read it from cover to cover in a monotone voice without inflection or facial tic. And even that itself would be a type of performance art with its own editorial value.

For all the claims that fake news is "killing democracy" or "dangerous to democracy" I think the one thing that truly can kill a democracy is violating the 1st amendment and trying to establish some government censor of newscasts, podcasts, books, or vlogs because you think the message is wrong, misleading, dangerous, offensive, propaganda.

[chiefalchemist]

So it would be wrong for the media industry - sans the gov - to establish quality control standards? If movies are "self rated" certainly we deserve to be told what's editorial.