[jolux]

If anybody, it should be the public, not the government, from the perspective of constitutional law. In an ethical sense, I'm less sure, because I feel pretty certain that the networks named in these letters are harmful to the country and harmful to democracy, but I'm unsure about the relative costs in the long-term of government intervention here. The ruling party attacking opposition media is never a good look, no matter how toxic said media is.

[arrosenberg]

This is the United States - the government is the public.

[jolux]

That's not really the case. The government is accountable to the public, but it also has the power to conceal things from the public, and take unilateral action in the case of the executive branch.

What I mean by "the public" are individuals cooperating to boycott organizations they see as corrosive to democracy, which is the typical solution for problems like this. The government is expressly and pretty strongly forbidden from regulating speech by our constitution, which is the mechanism by which the government is accountable to the people.

[arrosenberg]

I tend to disagree with the notion that this letter is chilling on free speech. There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter.

I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said.

[jolux]

>There is a difference between criticism of this government and agitprop designed to undermine the system of government. The 1A is designed to prevent the former, and this letter seems pretty clearly designed to fish for that latter.

I mostly agree on the merits, but arguing this point is difficult because regardless of what the 1A was designed to do, at this point its legal interpretation has become broad enough that it's hard to imagine the government having a legitimate role in regulating speech here. The framers don't seem to have foreseen a crisis like we face.

>I think it's a bad letter because Congress is trying to abrogate their responsibilities and act like this is AT&T's problem, when it isn't. They need to break up the monopolies and give people the tools to hold these businesses accountable, as you said.

Yes, the effect that the cable companies have on the television market makes it very difficult for individuals to take effective action against these organizations. I think Congress should be investigating antitrust action against the cable companies, but these don't seem to be bad questions to asking them while they still make up a monopoly.

[arrosenberg]

I agree it's tough to imagine this government having the legitimacy to deal with the crisis, if only because so many of them were complicit in creating it. The founders were pretty well-read - they were equally weary of a Caesar or Marius as they were a Charles I. New communication mediums always seem to bring an uncomfortable "breaking in" period along with them.