Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (52046)	10/11/2006 7:53:51 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

lol....well, when I read the story it seemed fairly clear that there was an agenda and probably a lack of understanding of the nature of such litigation. It is certainly not uncommon for entities in the same industry to join as amicus in pending appellate matters dealing with their industry. It happens with interest groups all the time, and includes insurance companies, environmental groups, gay and lesbian organizations, pro life and pro-choice groups, you name it. News organizations of all stripes jealously guard their First Amendment rights and are unlikely to sit by if they think there will be an incursion. Evidently the FCC had been looking into some potential regulation of news "distortions" but there was no firm regulation in place to cover such a claim. On a more personal level, given the "distortions" of "news" across the political spectrum by media organizations of all bents, I found the idea that the FCC should actually attempt "regulation" to be downright hilarious. I don't think any news organization would seriously welcome such a thing. By way of caveat, I'd have to read the opinion more carefully to fully comprehend what the FCC was actually doing at the time and then to determine whether it has actually undertaken, or attempted to undertake, such regulation since 2003. I suspect they were too distracted by wardrobe malfunctions for that<g>