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.
But the cable companies do care and there's numerous previous examples of them blacklisting channels to manipulate the entertainment market, the economy, or the media itself directly. Just search online for information pertaining to the debacle about Dodgers TV.
Good luck with that idea. The fact is, Charter, Comcast, Cox, AT&T, Time Warner, are all evil companies who have screwed Americans and not in the good way like in porn.
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.
These two are the nation's shittiest ISPs.
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.
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.
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
Oh look, a moron.
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.
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....
Why the fuck is Charter my only option?
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 ruling doesn't say that Charter must carry ESN channels. The ruling says that ESN can continue with their lawsuit to prove to that was racism and not other business decisions. And ESN must prove their allegation. The ruling also says that Charter can't outright claim any decision is protected by the First Amendment.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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)
The people in corporations don't lose their rights because they operate a corporation.
How are the people running the corporation having their rights infringed? They still have all the first amendment rights in the world. If you want a corporation to have rigths, then corporations and their boards should be held criminally liable for its actions up to, and including, the death penalty for violating laws that result in harm to or deaths of individuals as well as damage or harm to people's properties and the environment. If a corporation is willing to face dissolution for violating the law (such as VW's bypass of EPA regulations), then they deserve rights.
So if I come up with a channel of butts farting 24x7 I should be allowed to coerce Charter into including that in their channel line up? Wow you are first class stupid.
Only if you can prove that your channel was rejected because it shows mostly black butts farting, while Charter is fine with including channels of white butts farting.
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...
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...
Bullshit. There is no way they declined this channel BECAUSE it's black people. They declined it because there isn't enough demand to pay the carriage fee. Go find a new home troll.