Same here. I keep telling my son, who loves Resident Evil and the similar on-off, fake-out in Arkham Asylum, about it.

I really would love for them to do a remake or a sequel.

And I think he's only denouncing Trump now because he sees the sea shift away from Trump.

When I was on Twitter, that article was the oft-used article used by people as the source for the wrong assertions they were making on the case.

Yes but it still makes certain conclusions that are not based in the law.

For instance saying that Fox News said that you can never believe Tucker. That’s not what Fox News argued.

I wouldn’t use that article. The headline is misleading. The actual article is a little bit better but it still doesn’t fully understand the purpose of certain points.

That’s like telling a college professor discussing a specific book that she’s wrong based on the book review of a middle schooler known to cheat.

Stop using AI as a source especially for legal info.

In the latest example that we live in an idiocracy, I received the below post in reponse to my thread about the Tucker Carlson defamation case, where I point to the order dismissing the case to demonstrate that Fox News did not “admit” it was “entertainment.”

Sanctions ramping up in cases involving AI hallucinations The use of monetary sanctions against attorneys is seemingly on the rise as courts continue to address artificial intelligence-generated hallucinations in case documents.

Dude, I am quoting the papers from those courts cases in that thread, the original documents and you tell me to check out AI, which is documented to hallucinate legal cases and holdings?

Fox News made no such arguments.

www.abajournal.com/news/article...

Come on, clearly this person's experience HAS to be what everyone else's experience is on anything.

I was outside for awhile today. It doesn't take me long to explain this information. My output in this thread (and on Bluesky) is nothing compared to what I do otherwise in the day.

This is a minor distraction.

No, the public interest is not what Congress says it is. Congress still has to follow the Constitution and the applicable caselaw.

It's why the FCC regulation of over the air broadcasting, and even the Doctrine, was and is fairly limited.

To sum up, no, without a Constitutional amendment, the FCC and other gov't agencies cannot regulate cable channels, or any medium other than over the air broadcasting for the reasons explained in my first thread.

one viewpoint was aired.

The station had discretion in how and when the viewpoints were aired. The viewpoints did not have to be on the same program or for the same length.

The requirement could be satisfied with a weekly Sunday morning show like Meet the Press.

its why the Fairness Doctrine was pretty limited in what it required.

It required stations to provide airtime for opposing viewpoints on controversial issues, but stations had wide discretion in doing so. Stations weren't required to air such viewpoints every time the issue came up or even ...

Even with regard to the FCC regulation of over the air broadcasting, the regulation permitted was in reality very narrow. The FCC did not and could not regulate "editorial discretion" in news programs, which means it couldn't substitute its decision about what and hows news should be ...

that they are not looking to expand upon that list, especially when it comes to dealing with political speech.

It's why in US v. Alvarez, SCOTUS held that lies are protected unless they fall into existing and long-standing exceptions like defamation or fraud.

You've pointed out examples of exceptions to 1A, certainly, but those generally don't deal with the gov't licensing and regulation of the media.

Instead, they deal with exceptions that permit the gov't to criminalize or otherwise make illegal certain types of speech. But SCOTUS has indicated ...

and the United States.

I've given a couple examples of such harm with the ETA and the Doctrine, but we also saw it in 2024 from Florida which tried to claim that pro-abortion ads were criminal lies about healthcare:

bsky.app/profile/bwke...

Our legal system acknowledges that press lies can be harmful, but all along, we recognize that the greater harm comes from a gov't with the power to regulate the media and to punish "harmful" speech. Because that power will be abused.

History has shown that both abroad and here ....

And the media at the time 1A was drafted and ratified featured a media that was just as partisan and filled with misinformation as today.

Yet, 1A freedom of press was written to stop licensing and regulation of the media.

The rationale for the prohibition was that a corrupt gov't would use such regulations in ways to chill speech against it. Trump is clearly doing that now with the Equal Time Act.

And we have proof that other administrations did the same thing with the Doctrine.

bsky.app/profile/bwke...

But that point is wrong.

The prohibition here isn't just applying the Doctrine to cable channels. It's about regulating the media at all.

The intent of the First Amendment freedom of the press was to prohibit licensing and regulation of the media.

www.yalelawjournal.org/article/natu...

It's for that reason that "broadcasting" under the Communications Act has never been expanded to include cable channels and why Congress has never given the FCC authority to regulate them.

We can classify them however we want, but doing so doesn't mean the FCC can regulate them under the Constitution.

Because the ONLY reason that the FCC was permitted to regulate over the air broadcast stations was to address a "unique" issue with that medium.

bsky.app/profile/bwke...

I think his logic is his experience with a similar thing with his penis.

He believes his penis is small because he is a virgin.

That explains my ignorance.

Am I reading this correctly that the complaint admits that the Atlantic was correct that Patel was inebriated?

This isn't real, is it?

A) So you admit that you were wrong in your use of "ad hominem. That's progress.

B) The only one engaged in "puffery" is you in your attempts to look knowledgeable by lecturing others in how to conduct "insurgencies."

Go peddle your bovine bowel movements to someone gullible.

5)

www.justice.gov/archives/opa...

FBI foils mass casualty attack plot on Israeli consulate in NYC | LiveNOW from FOX YouTube video by LiveNOW from FOX

4)

youtu.be/68xnWkCZ_IQ?...