Brian Kemper
@bwkemper.bsky.social
Attorney, father, Peloton addict, writer, and Eternal Keeper of the Final Word. I don't reciprocate follows automatically nor do I follow accounts who don't post interesting content.
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
Check out my novel "Everything Can Change" available on Amazon.
Here's ABC News right after Ginsburg's death:
December 5, 2025 at 8:50 PM
Here's ABC News right after Ginsburg's death:
not other types of evidence.
So we cleared up that question.
I think Enrique asked whether there were "public evidence." But I didn't.
I even did a search of my posts for the use of "public." I didn't use that term today until after you asked whether "broadcast radio" counts as "public."
So we cleared up that question.
I think Enrique asked whether there were "public evidence." But I didn't.
I even did a search of my posts for the use of "public." I didn't use that term today until after you asked whether "broadcast radio" counts as "public."
December 5, 2025 at 7:50 PM
not other types of evidence.
So we cleared up that question.
I think Enrique asked whether there were "public evidence." But I didn't.
I even did a search of my posts for the use of "public." I didn't use that term today until after you asked whether "broadcast radio" counts as "public."
So we cleared up that question.
I think Enrique asked whether there were "public evidence." But I didn't.
I even did a search of my posts for the use of "public." I didn't use that term today until after you asked whether "broadcast radio" counts as "public."
What you talking about?
There is literally a screenshot there with "broadcast licenses" highlighted.
You must be a bot if you can't see it.
I posted the whole exchange again below.
There is literally a screenshot there with "broadcast licenses" highlighted.
You must be a bot if you can't see it.
I posted the whole exchange again below.
December 5, 2025 at 7:26 PM
What you talking about?
There is literally a screenshot there with "broadcast licenses" highlighted.
You must be a bot if you can't see it.
I posted the whole exchange again below.
There is literally a screenshot there with "broadcast licenses" highlighted.
You must be a bot if you can't see it.
I posted the whole exchange again below.
"private" forums as explained in full below.
But again, what does this have to with defamation?
But again, what does this have to with defamation?
December 5, 2025 at 7:24 PM
"private" forums as explained in full below.
But again, what does this have to with defamation?
But again, what does this have to with defamation?
Because I didn't attach it again as I have already done so several times.
But I'll do it again.
But I'll do it again.
December 5, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Because I didn't attach it again as I have already done so several times.
But I'll do it again.
But I'll do it again.
having a broadcast license did not turn CBS into a state actor (i.e. "public.")
December 5, 2025 at 7:16 PM
having a broadcast license did not turn CBS into a state actor (i.e. "public.")
It tells those of us that are lawyers that those cases back up their point that a private entity is not a state actor (i.e. public as further shown in Halleck below) unless they are performing a traditional, exclusive public function.
Which is what the court held in CBS v. DNC by finding that ...
Which is what the court held in CBS v. DNC by finding that ...
December 5, 2025 at 7:15 PM
It tells those of us that are lawyers that those cases back up their point that a private entity is not a state actor (i.e. public as further shown in Halleck below) unless they are performing a traditional, exclusive public function.
Which is what the court held in CBS v. DNC by finding that ...
Which is what the court held in CBS v. DNC by finding that ...
Yes, which was my point re: the station and the program.
I was talking abut the stations and transmission.
But again, and please answer the question, what does that have to do with our conversation?
I was talking abut the stations and transmission.
But again, and please answer the question, what does that have to do with our conversation?
December 5, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Yes, which was my point re: the station and the program.
I was talking abut the stations and transmission.
But again, and please answer the question, what does that have to do with our conversation?
I was talking abut the stations and transmission.
But again, and please answer the question, what does that have to do with our conversation?
The parenthetical literally says "broadcast licenses."
And you're claiming I can't read.
And if you actually read the cited case, you would see it is talking about CBS broadcasting as over licensed frequencies.
And you're claiming I can't read.
And if you actually read the cited case, you would see it is talking about CBS broadcasting as over licensed frequencies.
December 5, 2025 at 7:05 PM
The parenthetical literally says "broadcast licenses."
And you're claiming I can't read.
And if you actually read the cited case, you would see it is talking about CBS broadcasting as over licensed frequencies.
And you're claiming I can't read.
And if you actually read the cited case, you would see it is talking about CBS broadcasting as over licensed frequencies.
And that case establishes that CBS stations were "private" and thus, not bound by the First Amendment.
As SCOTUS clarified in Halleck that "public" forums were bound by it.
As SCOTUS clarified in Halleck that "public" forums were bound by it.
December 5, 2025 at 7:03 PM
And that case establishes that CBS stations were "private" and thus, not bound by the First Amendment.
As SCOTUS clarified in Halleck that "public" forums were bound by it.
As SCOTUS clarified in Halleck that "public" forums were bound by it.
in Halleck, the court further explained the distinction between "public" and "private" by noting that "public" forums were provided by the gov't and "private" ones were those provided by non-gov't entities.
The court later noted in the screenshot above that the access channel was ...
The court later noted in the screenshot above that the access channel was ...
December 5, 2025 at 6:58 PM
in Halleck, the court further explained the distinction between "public" and "private" by noting that "public" forums were provided by the gov't and "private" ones were those provided by non-gov't entities.
The court later noted in the screenshot above that the access channel was ...
The court later noted in the screenshot above that the access channel was ...
Yes, they do still count as private. SCOTUS recognized that in the case of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v.l Halleck when they noted that entities that have licenses from the FCC are still considered "private" and not "public."
As seen below which explain why giving a broadcast license ...
As seen below which explain why giving a broadcast license ...
December 5, 2025 at 6:50 PM
Yes, they do still count as private. SCOTUS recognized that in the case of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v.l Halleck when they noted that entities that have licenses from the FCC are still considered "private" and not "public."
As seen below which explain why giving a broadcast license ...
As seen below which explain why giving a broadcast license ...
What you meant by that word is why I asked the question in the first place and noted that I didn't what meaning you were using.
And I provided the example of a restaurant to illustrate the different meanings to.
And I provided the example of a restaurant to illustrate the different meanings to.
December 5, 2025 at 6:47 PM
What you meant by that word is why I asked the question in the first place and noted that I didn't what meaning you were using.
And I provided the example of a restaurant to illustrate the different meanings to.
And I provided the example of a restaurant to illustrate the different meanings to.
But that point was still about the law because as shown below, the question was whether there was evidence that Rush knew he was stating a lie, which goes to need to prove "actual malice under the law."
December 5, 2025 at 6:32 PM
But that point was still about the law because as shown below, the question was whether there was evidence that Rush knew he was stating a lie, which goes to need to prove "actual malice under the law."
to express their viewpoints.
Or again they could have done a counterpoint show at some point on the weekends.
Or again they could have done a counterpoint show at some point on the weekends.
December 4, 2025 at 9:31 PM
to express their viewpoints.
Or again they could have done a counterpoint show at some point on the weekends.
Or again they could have done a counterpoint show at some point on the weekends.
C) The FCC voted to repeal the policy in 1987 because the courts were beginning to challenge the Doctrine again due to the factual basis for the Doctrine no longer being valid.
As SCOTUS in Red Lion explained would be possible.
As SCOTUS in Red Lion explained would be possible.
December 4, 2025 at 9:24 PM
C) The FCC voted to repeal the policy in 1987 because the courts were beginning to challenge the Doctrine again due to the factual basis for the Doctrine no longer being valid.
As SCOTUS in Red Lion explained would be possible.
As SCOTUS in Red Lion explained would be possible.
know that because SCOTUS has struck down attempts to apply legal requirements similar to the Doctrine to other mediums as violations of 1A.
That includes last summer's case of Netchoice v. Moody regarding social media sites.
The rationale used there and in other cases applies to cable as well.
That includes last summer's case of Netchoice v. Moody regarding social media sites.
The rationale used there and in other cases applies to cable as well.
December 4, 2025 at 9:19 PM
know that because SCOTUS has struck down attempts to apply legal requirements similar to the Doctrine to other mediums as violations of 1A.
That includes last summer's case of Netchoice v. Moody regarding social media sites.
The rationale used there and in other cases applies to cable as well.
That includes last summer's case of Netchoice v. Moody regarding social media sites.
The rationale used there and in other cases applies to cable as well.
In terms of the Doctrine, someone in the business could know that the Doctrine applied to "broadcasting" but not know that "broadcasting" has a specific legal term that was different from the common term used in the industry.
The legal term limits "broadcasting" to over the air transmission ...
The legal term limits "broadcasting" to over the air transmission ...
December 4, 2025 at 9:16 PM
In terms of the Doctrine, someone in the business could know that the Doctrine applied to "broadcasting" but not know that "broadcasting" has a specific legal term that was different from the common term used in the industry.
The legal term limits "broadcasting" to over the air transmission ...
The legal term limits "broadcasting" to over the air transmission ...
access to them.
Indeed, SCOTUS and the FCC recognized that their holding permitting the Doctrine could be reversed if the "scarcity" issue was not longer a problem.
Indeed, SCOTUS and the FCC recognized that their holding permitting the Doctrine could be reversed if the "scarcity" issue was not longer a problem.
December 4, 2025 at 9:09 PM
access to them.
Indeed, SCOTUS and the FCC recognized that their holding permitting the Doctrine could be reversed if the "scarcity" issue was not longer a problem.
Indeed, SCOTUS and the FCC recognized that their holding permitting the Doctrine could be reversed if the "scarcity" issue was not longer a problem.
viewpoints.
Instead, the Doctrine applied to the "broadcast stations" who had discretion to provide airtime to those who wanted to air an opposing viewpoints at different dates/time and for different lengths.
Rush was already successful when the Doctrine was in place and the stations ...
Instead, the Doctrine applied to the "broadcast stations" who had discretion to provide airtime to those who wanted to air an opposing viewpoints at different dates/time and for different lengths.
Rush was already successful when the Doctrine was in place and the stations ...
December 4, 2025 at 9:04 PM
viewpoints.
Instead, the Doctrine applied to the "broadcast stations" who had discretion to provide airtime to those who wanted to air an opposing viewpoints at different dates/time and for different lengths.
Rush was already successful when the Doctrine was in place and the stations ...
Instead, the Doctrine applied to the "broadcast stations" who had discretion to provide airtime to those who wanted to air an opposing viewpoints at different dates/time and for different lengths.
Rush was already successful when the Doctrine was in place and the stations ...
SCOTUS reiterated that point last summer in Netchoice v. Moody when it said that TX and FL laws that attempted to stop social media sites from banning hate speech, etc. as "viewpoint discrimination" violated 1A for the same reasons expressed in Tornillo.
December 3, 2025 at 5:06 PM
SCOTUS reiterated that point last summer in Netchoice v. Moody when it said that TX and FL laws that attempted to stop social media sites from banning hate speech, etc. as "viewpoint discrimination" violated 1A for the same reasons expressed in Tornillo.
newspapers.
Further, additional writings by Jefferson and other founders demonstrated that they knew the media could be guilty of various abuses, but the greater danger was giving the gov't power to regulate the media. B/c the gov't would abuse it.
As SCOTUS noted in Tornillo, the "press ...
Further, additional writings by Jefferson and other founders demonstrated that they knew the media could be guilty of various abuses, but the greater danger was giving the gov't power to regulate the media. B/c the gov't would abuse it.
As SCOTUS noted in Tornillo, the "press ...
December 3, 2025 at 4:59 PM
newspapers.
Further, additional writings by Jefferson and other founders demonstrated that they knew the media could be guilty of various abuses, but the greater danger was giving the gov't power to regulate the media. B/c the gov't would abuse it.
As SCOTUS noted in Tornillo, the "press ...
Further, additional writings by Jefferson and other founders demonstrated that they knew the media could be guilty of various abuses, but the greater danger was giving the gov't power to regulate the media. B/c the gov't would abuse it.
As SCOTUS noted in Tornillo, the "press ...
Bullshit.
Yes, some channels, radio stations, and social media sites are echo chambers, but so were (and still) newspapers since the time of our founding, as Jefferson noted.
As I just stated, it's not like broadcast network programming provides "echo chambers." The national news shows ....
Yes, some channels, radio stations, and social media sites are echo chambers, but so were (and still) newspapers since the time of our founding, as Jefferson noted.
As I just stated, it's not like broadcast network programming provides "echo chambers." The national news shows ....
December 3, 2025 at 4:40 PM
Bullshit.
Yes, some channels, radio stations, and social media sites are echo chambers, but so were (and still) newspapers since the time of our founding, as Jefferson noted.
As I just stated, it's not like broadcast network programming provides "echo chambers." The national news shows ....
Yes, some channels, radio stations, and social media sites are echo chambers, but so were (and still) newspapers since the time of our founding, as Jefferson noted.
As I just stated, it's not like broadcast network programming provides "echo chambers." The national news shows ....
television is nowhere near the powerhouse for news or political opinion that it was when the Doctrine was initiated or repealed. For that reason among others, it's very like the Doctrine applied to broadcast television wouldn't be held constitutional today.
As SCOTUS noted in Red Lion in 1969.
As SCOTUS noted in Red Lion in 1969.
December 3, 2025 at 4:37 PM
television is nowhere near the powerhouse for news or political opinion that it was when the Doctrine was initiated or repealed. For that reason among others, it's very like the Doctrine applied to broadcast television wouldn't be held constitutional today.
As SCOTUS noted in Red Lion in 1969.
As SCOTUS noted in Red Lion in 1969.