![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
la_belle_laideI very much apologize for double-posting today.I hope I'm not being an LJ pest to my f-list. But this doesn't belong with my last post, and I still wanted to post it because it's important and I know a few of you on my F-list are interested in knowing things like this. Probably most of you, actually.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
What the HELL? It's "only a policy?" Oh, well I guess that makes it all right then. I want to spit in Bill O'Reilly's eye (actually I would love to do much more than that, involving a fishbat,) but hey, that's just my "policy."
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.
What the HELL? It's "only a policy?" Oh, well I guess that makes it all right then. I want to spit in Bill O'Reilly's eye (actually I would love to do much more than that, involving a fishbat,) but hey, that's just my "policy."
