Slashdot Mirror
Court Again Rules That Cable Giants Can't Weaponize the First Amendment (techdirt.com)
Charter has been using the argument that their First Amendment rights are being violated as it fights off state lawsuits for its poor service. "It recently tried to use the First Amendment card again in a legal battle with Byron Allen's Entertainment Studios Networks (ESN), which recently accused Charter of violating the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by refusing to carry TV channels run by the African-American-owned ESN," reports Techdirt. "While Charter tried to have the suit dismissed by claiming that the First Amendment prohibits such claims because an ISP enjoys 'editorial discretion,' the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn't agree." From the report: The court noted that while ISPs and cable companies do enjoy some First Amendment protection, it doesn't apply here, just like it didn't apply in the net neutrality fight: "As part of its defense, Charter had told the court that by choosing which channels to carry, the company was engaging in a form of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, it said, the court would have to use a stricter standard to evaluate Entertainment Studios' claim of a legal violation -- a standard that might result in the claim being rejected. The Ninth Circuit said otherwise, saying that just because Charter engages in corporate speech when it selects which channels to carry does not 'automatically' require the court to use the tougher standard."
As a result, the court is letting the case move forward. For its part, ESN's discrimination complaint alleges that its complaint is based on more than just having its channel withheld from the company's cable lineup: "The opinion on Charter's motion to dismiss also marks a victory for the 25-year-old programming firm founded by comedian Byron Allen, which bought the Weather Channel in March and accused Charter executives in court of hurling racist insults at Allen and other black Americans in numerous encounters. In one alleged instance, Charter chief executive Tom Rutledge called Allen, who is black, 'boy' at an industry conference and advised him to change his behavior, according to court documents. In another alleged example, the court said, Charter's senior executive in charge of programming, Allan Singer, approached a group of black protesters outside Charter's offices to tell them to 'get off of welfare.'"
As a result, the court is letting the case move forward. For its part, ESN's discrimination complaint alleges that its complaint is based on more than just having its channel withheld from the company's cable lineup: "The opinion on Charter's motion to dismiss also marks a victory for the 25-year-old programming firm founded by comedian Byron Allen, which bought the Weather Channel in March and accused Charter executives in court of hurling racist insults at Allen and other black Americans in numerous encounters. In one alleged instance, Charter chief executive Tom Rutledge called Allen, who is black, 'boy' at an industry conference and advised him to change his behavior, according to court documents. In another alleged example, the court said, Charter's senior executive in charge of programming, Allan Singer, approached a group of black protesters outside Charter's offices to tell them to 'get off of welfare.'"
I wish the court would rule that journalists and pundits must stop weaponizing the word "weaponize."
Cool. One question though. What *is* the first amendment?
This lawsuit sounds like a bad joke. No channel has right to force a provide to carry their channel. Don't even see how this even got past hearing stage. Why would a tv provider carry a channel if it isn't a channel people want? Its like forcing you to buy a car with features you don't want but they make you pay for them anyway.
one. this was just to see if it can go to trial. two. this is the 9th circuit and i can see the supreme court turning over anything those guys do as their interpretations generally stretch the meaning the constitution.
That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. I don't think the cable television companies care who owns the channels as long as they are making money (though the cable companies prefer to push their own channels, of course).
If you look up the Wikipedia article for ESN, the channels they run are: Automotive.TV, Cars.TV, Comedy.TV, ES.TV (entertainment), Justice Central, Pets.TV, Recipe.TV (cooking), and so on.
The most likely scenario is that Charter already made a bunch of deals with larger media companies (Viacom) and doesn't want smaller channels distracting from the ones their customers are "supposed" to be watching. Add to that there are already plenty of dead, useless cable channels that no one really watches.
It's not a racial issue, it's a business practices issue. It'd be best for the consumer to have an a la carte system, but it's impractical with cable company policies. Frankly, it'd be best to just dissolve cable companies as they are and switch everything to Internet streaming.
Don't need the government force cable companies to carry channels they don't want.
a bit graphic, but true
For all intensive purposes, the Ninth Circuit is no different from other circuits. While an extensive property, such as mass or number of rulings reversed per year, varies with an entity's size, an "intensive" property, such as density or fraction of rulings reversed, can be compared between smaller and larger entities.
Last I checked, the percentage of the Ninth Circuit's rulings that the Supreme Court reviews and ultimately reverses isn't that far out of line with other circuits. It's just that you hear about the Ninth so often because of its larger population.
They carry BET, BET HER, BET Jams, and BET Soul. "First Amendment" is a bullshit defense attempt, but ESN needs to get over themselves and accept maybe they just have shitty programming.
they've already delayed the lawsuit by several months. A defensive weapon is still a weapon. Now all they have to do is keep buying off politicians (and get voters to keep voting for bought politicians) and they're all set.
And at the risk of being modded troll (because nobody likes bringing the parties into it), once again this wouldn't be happening if Trump wasn't in office. If we can stave his man Pai off for 2 more years we've got a chance to restore Net Neutrality, but that means voting for a Democrat. The question for the Trumpers is, is Net Neutrality worth it? We'll find out.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
a monopoly. Any business with monopoly status loses certain rights in relation to its 'market discretion' since they now have the power to manipulate the market.
Doesn't anyone remember AT&T or the failed Microsoft anti-trust? Both are very similar to what is being accused here.
And for most cablegoers, until a channel is offered they won't know if they want it. That is kind of the whole point of cable, the kitchen sink of television stations.
And puts all the rich fat cats out of our collective misery. Please wonâ(TM)t someone start with the CEOs and work your way down.
It means 'ethnic' channels that are all run by a certain kind of person will get shoved off the lineup by 'ethnic' channels run by people of that ethnicity.
Who does this harm? Expect a reversal.
These two are the nation's shittiest ISPs.
Ergo business is too.
What the hell does the first amendment have to do with what channels they put on cable? That's a purely business decision. The simple solution to this problem is to stop handing out monopolies to these giant companies. Bust them up and let the market sort it out.
Corporations are not capable of truly free speech.
Ah... yet another stupid comment from a MAGA trump supporter.
Why don't you move to russian comrade.
What else would one expect from a company that from its beginnings has bought up all the media companies it can afford and dragged the nation's public debate over to the lunatic right, back to where it was in the early 20th century?
The first amendment isn't a card to be played, and it certainly isn't a weapon. I've heard this "weaponize the first amendment" phrase a couple times over the past year, and it's not right in any way. This anti-first amendment rhetoric I hear seems to come from the far-left. I never thought I'd hear the far left being against the first amendment, but here we are.
This kind of crap is dangerous. First it's Trump from the far-right demonizing the media as "enemy of the people". Now it's the far-left that turns the first amendment into a card to be played, and a "weapon".
I don't know anything about this lawsuit. The article seems to think the details of it aren't important, and just want to sell an agenda. I don't see why cable companies don't have editorial control over what channels they carry. It's absurd to assert that they don't.
Both extremes are becoming more and more nutty. The far left wants to control speech just as much as the far right does. The political wings just loop around in a nice U shape.
Where I am I can get Specturm or Spectrum (Time Warner which messes up all kinds of things) If there was a choice it would be not them. As the cards fall there is no choice so boycotting stupid stuff is not relevant. There is no choice, I can't go to a competitor because there isn't one. Not having internet isn't an option because I work remotely, although it was considered on month 3 of them messing up even the most pedestrian of tasks. Now I get bothered with 3-4 calls offering me services I patently refuse every time and ask them to not call me any more. I hope for change, and options but as it is that will not happen.
just wait for disney to use this force disney online fees on to all internet net subs as an must carry service.
The first amendment does not apply to corporations. Peuple have rights. Corporations are fictions we make up, so we can apply whatever rules we want to them.
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
Silencing others isn't the same as saying what you personally think.
Oh look, a moron.
Because you can't criticize something, and do it too. Let alone in the same sentence. (Holy cognitive dissonance Batman!)
Do you believe that a cheap "(I am saying )they did it first!!" excuse makes your case more right, and that they don't have the same excuse?
Or do you only want YOU to be more equal, and it's only about power?
For the record: I agree with you! And that is why I would have to downmod you, to follow through with it too.
What's the first thing you think of when you think black-oriented media company? I don't even need to look them up to know they're exploiting manufactured toxic black culture perpetuated by the media to sell other black people stupid shit they don't need and to give anti-white racists a platform. No wonder they didn't want that trash on their service.
In reality, the one(s) with the biggest stick make[s] the rules. No exception. One might just not recognize something as a "stick".
Rules, laws, terms and conditions and contracts only mean as much, as the stick of whoever backs them.
Unfortunately, corporations, while organized themselves, managed to convince the people, that organizing in any way (actual democracy as opposed to lobbyists and electoral colleges and senates; unions; etc) is the devil. That way they gave themselves the biggest stick.
Which would be funny, if it wasn't so sad... as corporations are indeed made of people.
They can still censor. But when it comes to the inclusion of this channel they have to. If they don't like the law there, they can move. Leave the USA. Simples.
It merely means the power to change the market irrespective of the wishes of either consumers or other market entrants in the sphere. And they are a monopoly. Fucking idiots haven't learned a frigging thing in 20 years...
They've produced a few "black shows". Not very good ones though.
Is ESN charging the cable companies to carry it's stations?
If Yes, then tough shit for ESN, you can't force someone to carry your programming.
If No, how much does it cost the cable company to add the channels and carry them? If more than $0 , then tough shit for ESN. you can't force someone to carry your programming.
Now if ESN is offering to pay them to carry the channels, then there might be a case....
As long as it fits your worldview and makes you happy, you make that up and just BELIEVE until it's true for you.
The people in corporations don't lose their rights because they operate a corporation.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Why the fuck is Charter my only option?
that you don't want, though. You're 100% fine with that. Since this is the case, your proclamation here is a lie and you do not actually care about the rights here, you just are triggered that some black people aren't getting as screwed over as they used to and the narrowing of that gap between blacks and you makes you feel like you're being persecuted "just as much as blacks" now.
I never thought I'd hear the far left being against the first amendment, but here we are.
Been going on for the better part of 15 years now, you musta missed it. But it's the same far left pushing "hate speech" laws, and demanding the revocation of uncomfortable speech to avoid hurting a persons feelings. Wanna see the end of the line? Look to Europe where speech is controlled, and you can be arrested and detained for having an unpopular opinion. Or be detained and arrested for simply publishing the truth, and it's "uncomfortable" to the ruling government of the day.
This kind of crap is dangerous. First it's Trump from the far-right demonizing the media as "enemy of the people".
Well first, Trump isn't far-right. If he was, then Bill Clinton would be the invocation of Mao reborn. Second, he's right about the media acting as the "enemy of the people." Anyone who grew up in the 70's or 80's can see this because they were exposed to various bits of propaganda from all sides. There were brief periods where the news media was simply about news, the problem today is that nearly every news organization in the US and Canada is controlled by a few companies. It doesn't matter if you listen to CTV(Canada) or CBS(US) they're both parroting the same point of view. Now the part where it gets ugly, because we have seen by the documents and emails coming out of wikileaks that in the US, that large media organizations and reporters were colluding with only one side of the political isle, repeatedly(that's the democrats if you haven't read them - you should). In Canada, it's a case where the parent companies have directly influenced, controlled, and mettle in news coverage to make it more favorable to the corporations controlling interest.
Ask yourself how the media isn't acting as an enemy of the people in those cases. They're going out of their way to publish not what is in the public interest, but what is in the interest of the corporate board, whether it be pushing a political agenda and labeling it as news, or simply burying news because it would hurt their financial requirement to shareholders. That's far and removed from the media of even the 1990's, or even early 00's.
Om, nomnomnom...
In the context of an article about a ruling by a Yank court, "First Amendment" means what the Yanks think it means.
If you work remotely, could you work remotely from a different city with a better ISP?
Just add a couple of evangelical christian services to ESNs lineup. Cable companies will carry every 500 watt christian station or risk the wrath of the religious community.
Have gnu, will travel.
The first amendment isn't a card to be played, and it certainly isn't a weapon. I've heard this "weaponize the first amendment" phrase a couple times over the past year, and it's not right in any way. This anti-first amendment rhetoric I hear seems to come from the far-left. I never thought I'd hear the far left being against the first amendment, but here we are.
Yes, here we are indeed.
According to the Left, the First Amendment:
Does protect nude dancing
Does not protect political speech, at least not if anybody has to pay money to distribute it
Does not protect deciding what you want to broadcast on your own network (see the story)
Speaking of media, no you are not correct. Media don't act as the "enemy of the people" but they act as opportunists and money maker (e.g. viewer rating). Early time of news, they fed information. Though, when they wanted to persuade people to their way (propaganda), they fed misleading information by omitting certain truth of the info. Nowadays, they literally fed completely fabricated stories, not information. Some times they throw in opinion pieces on top of the either fake or real stories. People nowadays are also at fault. Extremists (from either side) will take whatever their media (or talk/radio host) said to their heart and never even bother to fact check. Most of these extremists will also reject any evidence that demystify those fabricated stories.
Therefore, media is NOT the enemy of the people but it is those who spread the fake news as an alternative fact. Opinions in news are acceptable but listeners themselves must understand and do their own research on what to believe and/or agree. Don't just take an easy way out by blaming on the whole media.
Usually, free speech is just that. Speech, as in someone talking.
You can talk. It is a right, in many countries.
You want an amplifier & loudspeakers? Radio? TV? Internet presence?
You won't get those for free. So if you have no money, you can rightfully be turned down by those who own & operate such equipment.
Similar for "the free press". Sure, you have a right there. You can't go to jail for printing - but you better provide ink, paper and rent for the machinery. . .
In regards to this commend in the article:
> refusing to carry TV channels run by the African-American-owned ESN
The question now is ESN selling the channel or offering it for free? If they're selling then I find it hard to believe a court would force anyone to pay for something they don't think is worth the investment. I'm completely against the BS that ISPs/Cable company conglomerates push on customers but I think the ESN stuff sonds like more identity politics bullshit.
"For all intents and purposes"
Just FYI
With one exception: "intensive purposes" when discussing intensive and extensive properties.
Speaking of media, no you are not correct. Media don't act as the "enemy of the people" but they act as opportunists and money maker (e.g. viewer rating). ... Most of these extremists will also reject any evidence that demystify those fabricated stories.
Well you just proved my point. They're chasing numbers, not fact, they don't care if their reporting is correct, only how many people it can draw. That is how the media is the enemy of the people, they don't care for fact, objectivity, dividing lines between news and opinion.
The whole "reject evidence that demystify those stories" is a very common trend in all mainstream media today, especially with the people who listen to mainstream sources and accept them without any reservation. Let me give you an example, because there's an easy one at hand. Pope can say "there isn't a far-leftwing bias problem on universities because xyz mainstream site says so." I can show however, that students fear speaking out, fear having open opinions contrary to what's being pushed at universities, and the number of student unions, teachers unions and so on that run far-left workshops that in some cases are mandatory. They will, however, not believe this regardless of any evidence presented.
Therefore, media is NOT the enemy of the people but it is those who spread the fake news as an alternative fact. Opinions in news are acceptable but listeners themselves must understand and do their own research on what to believe and/or agree. Don't just take an easy way out by blaming on the whole media.
So, what do you do when the vast majority of the media is controlled by a handful of companies, +90% of the reporters identify as democrat/progressive/green/ndp/liberal, openly state that they insert favorable points into their articles, and actively restricted "uncomfortable" stories that would paint their brand of politics/leaders/view in a bad light? Are you saying that the vast majority of that media isn't the problem now? Keeping in mind that the same view points and actions are being uniformly acted upon in multiple countries, with suppression of stories/articles or even crime statistics that go against the narrative being presented by the current ruling political party.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well you just proved my point. They're chasing numbers, not fact, they don't care if their reporting is correct, only how many people it can draw. That is how the media is the enemy of the people
Nah, they're not enemies of the people for chasing numbers or not chasing facts. Being factual or correct was never a requirement for the free press. Free press is like free speech: you aren't limited to only saying or reporting the "correct" things.
Some alt-right dude in his mom's basement can shout Nazi propaganda all he wants.
Likewise, the mainstream media can put Marxist spin on things all they want.
And while we're at it, college professors also enjoy the freedom to push all the post modernist feminist intersectional theory they want.
Now, having an informed electorate is a nice thing, but that's not a right. People are not entitled to being informed. You aren't owed a truthful and factual story.
So, what do you do when the vast majority of the media is controlled by a handful of companies, +90% of the reporters identify as democrat/progressive/green/ndp/liberal, openly state that they insert favorable points into their articles, and actively restricted "uncomfortable" stories that would paint their brand of politics/leaders/view in a bad light?
::Jordan Peterson:: You can go clean your room.
Half joking there, but as above, you aren't owed truthful news. If you want a truthful non-biased news network, build one yourself. That may involve you cleaning up your room and get you life together first though.
That's what we tell the left when they complain. Don't like how few women are in [insert industry]? Start your own company and hire some women. Don't like how men get paid more? Work harder and do a better job.
Unfortunately for you, it appears few conservatives practice what they preach to the left. There are certainly new alternative media sources trying to take a bite out of MSM's lunch, and some even boast how they're the future for news reporting as people lose trust in the MSM. Problem is they too chase after viewers and money, not facts.
ESN is going to lose hard.
Nah, they're not enemies of the people for chasing numbers or not chasing facts. Being factual or correct was never a requirement for the free press. Free press is like free speech: you aren't limited to only saying or reporting the "correct" things.
And have you asked the question as to why the media is trusted less then politicians these days?
Half joking there, but as above, you aren't owed truthful news. If you want a truthful non-biased news network, build one yourself. That may involve you cleaning up your room and get you life together first though.
Hard to do especially when the government is now handing out cash and tax breaks to news media instead of letting them sink or swim on their own.
That's what we tell the left when they complain. Don't like how few women are in [insert industry]? Start your own company and hire some women. Don't like how men get paid more? Work harder and do a better job.
Unfortunately for you, it appears few conservatives practice what they preach to the left. There are certainly new alternative media sources trying to take a bite out of MSM's lunch, and some even boast how they're the future for news reporting as people lose trust in the MSM. Problem is they too chase after viewers and money, not facts.
Well why don't we just look at the state of "go make your own." Look at the youtube replacement, that was host-killed, payment-killed, and unable to stay afloat because leftwing groups attacked them. Then go look at a twitter replacement like gab.ai, where the left went out of their way to try and ruin them. Look at the various chan splits, where damn it's like those same people who identify as left turn around and make shit up in order to get their hosting closed. You notice anything in all of these cases? There is "suddenly" a flood of child porn, or other obscenity, or speech that's inciting, and so on.
Later rinse repeat, the same things happen every time someone tries to make a competitor.
Om, nomnomnom...
And have you asked the question as to why the media is trusted less then politicians these days?
What does that have to do with whether they're enemies of the people? ::Ben Sharpio:: Facts don't care about your feelings. Whether you trust the media or not is just your own feelings.
Lots of liberals don't trust Trump. Does that make Trump an enemy of the people?
Hard to do especially when the government is now handing out cash and tax breaks to news media instead of letting them sink or swim on their own.
Yeah, that's what the liberals said too, that it's just too hard and the government is helping those other people but not you. You (conservatives, not you specifically) didn't care back then. Why do you expect people to care about you now?
Oh and this still has nothing to do with the media being enemies of the people.
Look at the youtube replacement
Then go look at a twitter replacement
Bro, when I was talking about media, it was under the context of organizations that go seek out, discover, and report the news, a whole different thing than youtube or twitter, which are simply channels for media organizations to post the news they found.
I'm talking about the right leaning people doing independent news reporting themselves. They do exist, even on youtube and twitter. To this day.
But as I said last post, they turn out to be just as money chasing as the MSM, prioritizing catering to their base over delivering facts.