It's Spreading: Lindsey Graham Now Insisting 'Fairness Doctrine' Applies To The Internet
from the aren't-you-supposed-to-understand-law? dept
Remember when Republicans were against the "Fairness Doctrine"? Apparently, that's now out the window, so long as they can attack Facebook. As we noted recently, Senator Ted Cruz appears to be pushing for the strangest interpretation of Section 230 around (in direct conflict with (a) what the law says and (b) how the courts have interpreted it) saying that in order to make use of CDA 230's immunity "good samaritan" clause, internet service providers need to be "neutral." Again, that's not what the law says. It's also an impossible standard, and one that would lead to results that would piss off lots of people. The similarities to the FCC's concept of the "Fairness Doctrine" are pretty clear, though such a rule on the internet would be an even bigger deal, since the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast TV.
And, it appears that Cruz's incorrect interpretation is spreading like a virus. Senator Lindsey Graham is now spewing the same nonsense.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a subcommittee chairman on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told MT that he remains concerned about potential bias when it comes to content moderation on social media platforms. “They enjoy liability protections because they’re neutral platforms. At the end of the day, we’ve got to prove to the American people that these platforms are neutral,” he said. “You’ve got to have a validating system where the government can come in and validate that this whole system is neutral.”
So much about this is wrong. First, Section 230 of the CDA has never required platforms to be neutral. Indeed, it would be silly to do so because what the hell does "neutral" even mean in this context? Second, claiming that someone needs to "prove" that the platforms are neutral. What does that even mean? How would you prove that anything is "neutral" anyway? Finally, saying that the government has to validate that your internet service is neutral raises a very large number of very serious First Amendment questions. What kind of Senator is not only so wrong about the law, but thinks that the appropriate role of government is to "validate" internet platforms over what kind of speech they allow?
Separately, this is the same Lindsey Graham who just recently was demanding that social media sites do more to takedown content he didn't like. Now, apparently, he's up in arms over the fact that the sites took down content he did like. If Graham truly wants websites to "do everything possible to combat" terrorist groups using the internet, then attacking CDA 230 is the worst possible way to do that. CDA 230 gives websites the power to moderate and filter out such content without fear of facing legal liability. In other words, it's an excellent tool for getting websites to takedown extremist content. To then turn around and insist that sites should lose CDA 230 protections because they also took down some content you like... raises all sorts of First Amendment issues. You're basically saying websites should only remove the content I dislike, and if they remove content I like I'm going to put their existence at risk. Guess what happens then? Sites will stop moderating entirely, leaving up more of the "bad" content you dislike.
Oh, and back to that whole "fairness doctrine" thing. Guess who is vehemently against it? You guessed right: Lindsey Graham. Opposing the Fairness Doctrine is one of the few issues on his tech campaign platform and a few years back he put out a press release touting his conservative credentials including "barring the use of federal funds to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine" (which was silly anyway, because there was no appetite to re-instate the Fairness Doctrine).
Except, now, as soon as he can pretend to be up in arms over Facebook, Graham seems to jump on the idea of a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. Not only that, but he seems to think it's already in place (it isn't) and requires the government to go in and validate platforms over what speech they allow.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cda 230, fairness doctrine, first amendment, intermediary liability, lindsey graham, neutral platform, ted cruz, validation
Companies: facebook, google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"fairness doctrine"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you wouldn't trust your worst enemy with it...
“You’ve got to have a validating system where the government can come in and validate that this whole system is neutral.”
Of course, because what could possibly go wrong with having the government decide who is and is not 'neutral', and thereby protected against liability for what their users post? I mean it's not like there are certain individuals who have practically made a mantra of 'fake news' with regards to anything they don't like, and who would love it if they could effectively shut down those things if given the power.
Beyond that however, it seems it would be easy enough to point out how colossally stupid this idea is by applying the 'turnabout is fair play test'. Right now Lindsey Graham apparently supports the idea that the government should be able to decide who is and who isn't covered by 230 based upon whether or not they are 'neutral'. This, I suspect, has a lot to do with the fact that currently his party effectively is the government, controlling all three branches.
However, government control shifts all the time, and it's inevitable that someone else will be in power after a while. Given that would be still support the government having that power if for example he knew that the next presidential election would result in all three branches controlled by the democrats? If the opposing party were the ones deciding who was and was not 'neutral'?
If you wouldn't trust your worst enemy with a power then it's foolish in the extreme to grant it to your own group, because eventually they will be in a position to make use of it, and at that point any protests about how unjust the power you used is when it's used against, rather than by you will likely fall on deaf ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you wouldn't trust your worst enemy with it...
This is all part and parcel of the "regulate all the things" crowd, which exists in both parties just intentionally improperly labeled.
"This, I suspect, has a lot to do with the fact that currently his party effectively is the government, controlling all three branches."
Suspect? No, this is 100% the case, just like when Obama tried to limit what his decedent Presidents could do with drone strikes in a classic example of "if it's me or mine, it is good, but if it is them or theirs... its BAD!!!!
In fact not only is not the case here, it is almost always the case everywhere, this is why political parties exist to begin with and "literally how they usurp the will of the people" and why I constantly harp against them and point people to George Washington's farewell address.
The downfall of America is directly due to the contempt generated by the left usually D's and the right usually R's against each other and this site is no different because it often plays right into that game.
"will likely fall on deaf ears."
Indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: If you wouldn't trust your worst enemy with it...
ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
At least, Techdirt / Masnick, for once try to appear vaguely objective and see that ordinary American "conservatives" (Lindsay Graham ISN'T! He's a NEO-CON. Playing to Populist base here.) might have some reasonable objection to be ARBITRARILY shut out when major sites are definitely aligned to serving interests of Rich / corporatists / leftist / globalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
In short, YOU TYPIFY THE CAUSE OF THIS ATTITUDE, Techdirt.
So be neutral -- OR ELSE. Techdirt is allowed to exist ONLY on condition serves The Public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
https://torrentfreak.com to see how that's turned out for ya.
**EVERY time The Public or Courts focus on piracy as theft or that "platforms" must provide basic fairness and civility as almost any bar does, corporatism will lose.**
So as tactic, you should tone down your absolute claims to immunity and being able to arbitrarily control the speech outlets of "natural" persons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is nothing more insane or bitter than a failed artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
Where? Who pirated what?
Unlimited? Wow, wonder what I stole. My pile of DVDs hasn't gotten any bigger and my music library hasn't gotten bigger. What the crap are you talking about?
Well apparently it's working out fairly well for pirates since none of that has even slowed or stopped them.
Well then I guess TD should start censoring you then since you lack both of the above.
This is the part where we throw our heads back and laugh. Ready? Ready! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
Mine has, though I tend to purchase from boutique labels specialising in genre movies with real effort put into packaging and special features, rather than whatever Hollywood happens to have released that week. In terms of "blockbusters", I buy virtually nothing nowadays, but that has nothing to do with piracy.
That's one of the things I love about this particular basket case - his very premise is so totally wrong he's literally attacking people who consciously avoid doing what he claims to hate. He has no proof that any regular poster here has every pirated (unless they have stated as such in comments, of course), he just assumes that people who are against their rights being stripped by corporations in order to be screwed over by corporations who refuse to offer the product their customers want must be pirates.
"Well then I guess TD should start censoring you then since you lack both of the above."
His lack of self-awareness is glorious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: just go to: https://torrentfreak.com to see how that's turne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: just go to: https://torrentfreak.com to see how that's turne
I'm sure he had a point somewhere in that half-boiled cabbage on top of his neck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google, Twitter, etc. have every right to boot people from their services if those people violate the terms of service—or for any other abritrary reason beyond those that would be ultimately discriminatory. If you dislike that notion, take it up with lawmakers.
As a privately-owned site, Techdirt is under no obligation to “serve the public” by hosting speech it does not want to host. Your continued refusal to separate the ideas of “private” and “privately-owned” prevent you from comprehending that fact. If you dislike that fact, buy the site.
The bittorrent protocols and the illicit downloading that takes place through those protocols have nothing to do with “fairness” in regards to the Internet. Platforms are under no legal obligation to provide “basic fairness and civility”; the existence of Stormfront as a legal and protected platform for its brand of “expressions” is a testament to that fact. If you dislike these ideas, sue someone over it.
And if you dislike the idea that people here can hide your comments, find a platform that will have you or build a platform under your personal control. No one here has any obligation to refuse flagging your comments, and you do not have any standing or legal power to force your comments out of hiding. Do something about it or die mad about it—your choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You mean they haven't?
Well, color me shocked...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
As a member of the community I just voted to hide your dumb and stupid comment. How about them apples?
So scary! What are you going to do? Yell at us in all caps some more?
This is just wrong. So called "pirate sites" don't serve the public (in your mind at least), yet they are allowed to exist.
Even if it were true, TD serves the public by providing commentary, insight, and analysis on news.
Wanna try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
Last I checked I'm no administrator.
Sorry bud.
Also, lmao, "Techdirt is allowed to exist ONLY on condition serves The Public"?
So subscription-only websites like Netflix, or Minecraft servers, aren't allowed to exist, because you have to be a paying customer in order to view them?
Or even merely password-protected websites, like most community forums?
What about if I decide to spend five minutes port forwarding, and make my personal hard drive readable via my IP address? That's serving only myself!
TechDirt could shut off everyone's ability to comment, and just show pictures of old PC cases turned into flowerpots, and they'd be 100% legally allowed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
You gonna cry harder?
USE ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME?
Somehow be even more pathetic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
Except, we've been telling you exactly why your comments are being hidden. You just choose to ignore the explanation.
Oh, and the community is fair - we flag anyone acting like a ranting idiot who is more obsessed with their own ego than discussion with anyone about the subject in the article. That you're the sole person who usually does this does not make it unfair, it means that you are the only person who fairly deserves such a response.
"And STOP LYING that's "community" and not approved by an Administator."
As ever, provide your evidence, else you are actually the one lying. Wouldn't that be stupid, huh? Ranting about a conspiracy when the thing you refuse to believe is actually true?
"So be neutral -- OR ELSE"
Or else what? lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not that Shiva is scary; at this point he's pretty fucking toothless, but out_of_the_blue entertaining his sexual fantasies? Now that's horrifying!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tl;dr
As far as I'm CONCERNED, his RANDOM all-caps WORDS are reason enough to FLAG his posts all BY themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MY WORST ENEMIES NOW HAVE CONTROL! GOOGLE AND FACEBOOK!
- Globalists
- Neo-cons
- Leftists
- Populists
- Corporatists
- The rich
But you like:
- "Ordinary American conservatives" who are none of the above
- Bigfoot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re control
They see it much better than you do, who cannot make the distinction between access to whatever site you wish to visit, which is what net neutrality protects, and content which net neutrality has nothing to do with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The road TO your business is not your business
Net Neutrality fans just can't seem to see the dangers of Federal "regulation" of the internet.
Probably because that's a strawman that some people refuse to let die.
Regulating the companies that provide access to the internet is distinctly different that regulating the internet, especially when said regulations were aimed at preventing the companies involved from interfering with the connection by allowing them to pick and choose winners and losers.
If anything the network neutrality regulations were meant to keep the companies from 'regulating the internet'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re control
They want to Regulate "everything", like the Internet, and also like Paint chips. They say there "shouldn't" be LEAD in my PAINT chips. Who are those "Leftists" to amekt that Decision for Me?! Let the Free MARKTE decide what amount of "lead" is Acceptable in "paint"!
My "doctor" tells me that Lead is Good for "me". Sure, he may not have a fancy "Degree" or "Medical license " or "Fourth Grade education", but he edosnt' need those Leftist Regulations to practice Medicine!
Every Nation eats the Paint chips it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re control
Hahaha, and Donald is an Evangelical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re control
He is, it just his God is Mammon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
But that’s not what seems to have happened. Instead, right-wingers now complain that “mainstream media is controlled by Liberals”. But how could that happen in a free and competitive market?
Unless, of course, the market has decided that the Liberal product is superior to the Illiberal competition.
Even when Illiberals call up Fox News to complain about “mainstream media”, they fail to notice the irony in what they are saying: don’t they themselves consider Fox News to be part of the “mainstream media”? After all, if you can’t even get respect from your own side, who can you get it from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
It only applied to *broadcast stations*, like WBTV or WXKO or KWLZ or what have you, which had to use a limited number of available frequencies to broadcast on.
With the advent of cable television, much of which is syndicated, there was no longer such a limit on the amount of voices that could be heard. Thus, the Fairness Doctrine risked becoming ruled as unconstitutional.
Rather than wait around for the time-consuming and expensive court battle, over something that, as you said, they didn't have much interest in maintaining anymore, it was voluntarily withdrawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
In 1967 NBC News did a hit piece on New Orleans DA Jim Garrison to try and stem the increasing disbelief in the Warren Commission report. It was deemed so nasty that Garrison was given a half hour on NBC in prime time to refute claims made in NBC’s white paper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
He said “the Fairness Doctrine never applied directly to Fox or NBC or ABC”.
I gave a perfect example of the Fairness Doctrine being applied to NBC, when they were forced to give up prime time airtime to an aggrieved party in the interest of fairness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Right-Wingers Got Rid Of The Fairness Doctrine ...
These same people shout "let the market to decide" ... abruptly stop with a puzzled look and say "errr, wait a sec"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lindsey Graham is one of those pretentious blowhards who takes a principled stand on every issue, hoping that people won't notice his hypocrisy when he later switches sides whenever it's convenient
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Fox “News” Channel started up almost a decade after The Fairness Doctrine was killed by the Reagan Administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to complain about biased conservative media that were helped by no Fairness Doctrine, then complain about talk radio, where the example would actually be pertinent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It reminds me of today's "both sides" argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wasn't a guidebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wasn't a guidebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lindsey Graham Is From The Government, And He’s Here To Help You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The solution is as simple as it is obvious: Internet platforms should send all content directly to Lindsey Graham for review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Net Neutrality irony
Now some of those same people want 'the fairness doctrine' they hate for the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Net Neutrality irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness Doctrine also applied to broadcast radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]