If they broadcast with a license, oh yes they do have an obligation.Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:01 pmThere is no censorship here in any sense.Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 3:40 amI do not like censorship either. But I DO think there are times that it is OBVIOUSLY better to apply censorship and control than not to.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:32 pm The question is to whether there is a point at which censorship SHOULD occur in light of my own disapproval of it normally.
...whether given something you can imagine one can say can be so affective in a way that misleads others to harm?
Why would we be willing to hand a microphone and broad media coverage over to an obvious liar who incites rage and violence? How is that necessary or constructive?
Why is protecting/promoting THAT person's freedom more important than protecting other people's well-being?
A position of "no censorship" is an extremist position, just as total censorship would be.
CNN or any of the other News Agencies are not under any obligation to give Trump a platform. That's freedom of speech too.
If the rancid fat orange jellyfish wants to bleat like a baby, he can always post on Facebook, and Twitter to the twittering loons.
The government can and often does interrupt normal broadcasting with messages.
FCC. Federal regulation.