Author | Lightnews

Brian Kemper

Brian Kemper

@bwkemper.bsky.social

330 followers 220 following 7.3K posts

Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · Sep 19

I don't know. I think this guy was the one to blame.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 2h

Doctrine on other mediums, SCOTUS has struck down such requirements as in Miami Herald v. Tornillo and last summer's Netchoice v. Moody, which held that social media sites couldn't be compelled by Florida and Texas to display viewpoints they did not want to display.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 2h

stations in the first place was due to "unique" defects with that medium which required gov't gatekeeping to select a few who could broadcast over the "scarce" frequencies.

Every time that federal or state gov'ts have tried to enact requirements similar to the ...

bsky.app/profile/bwke...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · Sep 11

of the media.

But SCOTUS permitted it (as seen in Red Lion v. FCC), because without the gov't (through the FCC) regulating who could broadcast and who couldn't, the medium would be unusable. It has a scarce amount of usable frequencies. No other medium has such an inherent, technological limit.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 3h

A) The Fairness Doctrine didn't prohibit "lying."

B) Cable channels like Fox News (as well as almost every other media outlet) cannot be regulated like over the air broadcast stations can. As explained by SCOTUS in Red Lion v. FCC, the only reason the FCC was permitted to regulate such ....

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 3h

Doctrine could never have applied to Fox News or any other cable channel.

The FCC doesn't regulate cable channel content nor any other medium other than over-the-air "broadcasting." And even then, its ability to regulate content is and was very narrow.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 3h

A) The Fairness Doctrine did not regulate the "news" or "lies."

B) Local print news was not regulated by anyone and was always free to "spew lies as news" as long has it didn't cross into defamation.

C) Murdoch had nothing to do with the end of the Doctrine. Despite social media myths, the ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

we are taking about defamation and whether a person can be held liable for stating an opinion.

You can't be held liable for the opinion under 1A no matter what, so it doesn't matter whether the speaker could offer evidence in their defense or not.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

Further, one of the reasons we don't punish people for their opinions is because even ignorant people are entitled to their opinions.

Now, if due to such opinions, they act is a way that violates the law, civilly or criminally, of course they should be punished.

But again, remember that ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

And again, for a time in a number of areas (even today, although far less so), a person wouldn't be considered a racist for not renting to POC or hiring them.

The people around them could call them "smart."

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

It is useful b/c there are other people who are racists too, not just the person being spoken of.

Like people on a jury.

Those people may not own property and aren't employers so they have never rented property or hired people and thus haven't committed racist acts, but have racist beliefs.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

If I said "it's really hot today," that's an opinion. I could "validate" that opinion by pointing to the temperature of 80 degrees and where I live everyone could agree.

But someone from a much hotter climate where it's regularly 100 degrees could think that temperature was actually cool.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

A widely shared opinion or a credible one based on proven facts is still just an opinion.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

Of course it is. Often racists don't think they are racists b/c they believe they aren't making valueless judgement but truly believe that all people of a certain race due to "DNA" or some other reason have a certain trait.

A racist on the jury could disagree that a certain action was "racist."

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

Yeah, I fucked up.

I was typing fast and just typed what he wrote.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

and was sued, under your logic, unless there was evidence that the person failed to rent property to a POC or hire them, I'd lose.

Also, you're using hearsay wrong.

If I hear someone say something and I base my opinion of the person on what they say, that's not hearsay.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

That's you though.

What if I called someone a racist simply after hearing them speak because it's my opinion that their use of those words indicates their racist beliefs? A racist could still choose to rent property to a person of color or hire them.

If I called such a person a "racist" ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

derogatory one.

But let's say you have someone who uses that term only against people of a certain color or nationality rather than using an obvious slur. One person could pick up on that and call him a racist but another may not and disagree.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

someone is a racist depends upon their thinking and beliefs. The only way we can tell is when they express such beliefs or act accordingly.

But they hide it from most people or use coded phrases, they could still be a racist.

For instance, "thug" is not generally a racist term but still a ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

You'd be wrong.

I'm mean sure, someone can easily say that someone who uses the n-word and other slurs is racist.

But what if that speaker is smart and doesn't use obvious slurs but instead uses other words that historically are not racist but may be on the verge of becoming one?

Whether ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

For an example, most people have a shared norm against racism, but two different people could disagree as to whether someone is a racist.

Which is why calling someone a racist (or antisemitic, etc.) is a statement of opinion and cannot be actionable defamation.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

value twice whereas a more tolerant person with the same norms may disagree with the mindset that everyone makes mistakes.

Two people can have the same norms and morays but disagree on whether the norm has actually been violated.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

Norms and morays are shared values by goups/societies.

Values themselves are opinions as to what the group/society believes are good or necessary in their lives.

Further, because no one is perfect and peoples' tolerances differ, one person may think a father is terrible because he violated a ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 4h

You would absolutely wrong.

Words like "terrible" and "violent" (and pretty much all adjectives) are subjective and thus are opinions.

One person may believe a father is terrible if he doesn't help with child rearing chores, like changing diapers or feeding their baby.

Others would disagree.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 7h

have a degree in economics.

It's these type of gov't regulations and etc that the First Amend't prohibits. Because corrupt gov'ts will use them to target speech and people they don't like.

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 7h

Also, China is known for its tight control on information and has its own ministry of propaganda.

This effort is just another attempt to provide justifications for the gov't to quash dissent. If someone on the internet complains about low wages, the gov't could shut them down b/c they don't ...

Brian Kemper @bwkemper.bsky.social · 7h

And the goal wasn't to provide "pertinent information."

Rather, as noted by SCOTUS in Red Lion v. FCC, it was done to address "unique" defects in over-the-air broadcasting (namely a "scarcity" of frequencies) that led to the gov't only permitting a select few to broadcast while denying others.