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.
"Propaganda" media is nothing new and has existed throughout the history of media and the US. Under the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press, every private individual and entity has a right to express political opinions, which by definition are "propaganda."
December 9, 2025 at 5:01 PM
"Propaganda" media is nothing new and has existed throughout the history of media and the US. Under the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press, every private individual and entity has a right to express political opinions, which by definition are "propaganda."
Even if the Doctrine was brought back to apply to such stations, even then it would likely be held unconstitutional as the factual circumstances underlying SCOTUS's rationale in Red Lion v. FCC are no longer valid. As the Court suggested may one day happen.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
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 9, 2025 at 4:59 PM
Even if the Doctrine was brought back to apply to such stations, even then it would likely be held unconstitutional as the factual circumstances underlying SCOTUS's rationale in Red Lion v. FCC are no longer valid. As the Court suggested may one day happen.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
The Doctrine could never be constitutionally applied to any entity other than local over the air radio and TV broadcast stations.
Its application to such stations was an exception to the First Amendment given to address a "unique" defect with that medium.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
Its application to such stations was an exception to the First Amendment given to address a "unique" defect with that medium.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
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.
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.
December 9, 2025 at 4:57 PM
The Doctrine could never be constitutionally applied to any entity other than local over the air radio and TV broadcast stations.
Its application to such stations was an exception to the First Amendment given to address a "unique" defect with that medium.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
Its application to such stations was an exception to the First Amendment given to address a "unique" defect with that medium.
bsky.app/profile/bwke...
Even had the Doctrine not been repealed, the FCC could not have been applied to cable channels, such as Fox News.
The FCC has never licensed or regulated cable channels. None of its regulations apply to them.
Or any other media entity other than local over the air tv and radio broadcast stations.
The FCC has never licensed or regulated cable channels. None of its regulations apply to them.
Or any other media entity other than local over the air tv and radio broadcast stations.
December 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Even had the Doctrine not been repealed, the FCC could not have been applied to cable channels, such as Fox News.
The FCC has never licensed or regulated cable channels. None of its regulations apply to them.
Or any other media entity other than local over the air tv and radio broadcast stations.
The FCC has never licensed or regulated cable channels. None of its regulations apply to them.
Or any other media entity other than local over the air tv and radio broadcast stations.
Most media entities don't have "FCC licenses."
Only over-the-air radio and TV broadcast stations do. That means cable channels, newspapers, social media sites, streaming services, and all other media are not regulated by the FCC.
Only over-the-air radio and TV broadcast stations do. That means cable channels, newspapers, social media sites, streaming services, and all other media are not regulated by the FCC.
December 9, 2025 at 4:27 PM
Most media entities don't have "FCC licenses."
Only over-the-air radio and TV broadcast stations do. That means cable channels, newspapers, social media sites, streaming services, and all other media are not regulated by the FCC.
Only over-the-air radio and TV broadcast stations do. That means cable channels, newspapers, social media sites, streaming services, and all other media are not regulated by the FCC.
Those are statements of opinions, which in the US cannot be defamation.
Trump's well aware of that as he's had a number of defamation lawsuits, including 2 against CNN, thrown out because the statements at issue were deemed statements of opinion.
Trump's well aware of that as he's had a number of defamation lawsuits, including 2 against CNN, thrown out because the statements at issue were deemed statements of opinion.
December 9, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Those are statements of opinions, which in the US cannot be defamation.
Trump's well aware of that as he's had a number of defamation lawsuits, including 2 against CNN, thrown out because the statements at issue were deemed statements of opinion.
Trump's well aware of that as he's had a number of defamation lawsuits, including 2 against CNN, thrown out because the statements at issue were deemed statements of opinion.
You act like he's never been sued. He has repeatedly. And a number of them have been laughed out of court.
He doesn't care when they are. Hell, at this point, he may not even know when those suits happen.
He doesn't care when they are. Hell, at this point, he may not even know when those suits happen.
December 9, 2025 at 12:23 PM
You act like he's never been sued. He has repeatedly. And a number of them have been laughed out of court.
He doesn't care when they are. Hell, at this point, he may not even know when those suits happen.
He doesn't care when they are. Hell, at this point, he may not even know when those suits happen.
Why are you posting that?
December 8, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Why are you posting that?
I’ll note that I was in law school in the ‘90’s and in our discussions re: Roe, there was no “certainty” that a more conservative SCOTUS with “better” vetting would not overturn Roe, especially when it remained a plank of the Republican party to do so.
December 6, 2025 at 2:54 PM
I’ll note that I was in law school in the ‘90’s and in our discussions re: Roe, there was no “certainty” that a more conservative SCOTUS with “better” vetting would not overturn Roe, especially when it remained a plank of the Republican party to do so.
orginally mentioned was in the context. of the “certainty” above re: birthright citizenship now that the issue is in front of the Court.
So the “certainty” re: Roe comment has to be about when Dobbs was before or approaching SCOTUS.
And there was no such “certainty” at that time.
So the “certainty” re: Roe comment has to be about when Dobbs was before or approaching SCOTUS.
And there was no such “certainty” at that time.
December 6, 2025 at 2:50 PM
orginally mentioned was in the context. of the “certainty” above re: birthright citizenship now that the issue is in front of the Court.
So the “certainty” re: Roe comment has to be about when Dobbs was before or approaching SCOTUS.
And there was no such “certainty” at that time.
So the “certainty” re: Roe comment has to be about when Dobbs was before or approaching SCOTUS.
And there was no such “certainty” at that time.
enough votes.
Further, even “settled law” does not mean it’s not overturnable. All it means is that SCOTUS had addressed the issue before and settled it then for the lower courts.
Hell. Plessy v Ferguson was settled law at one point too.
Finally, as I noted elsewhere, the “certainty” ….
Further, even “settled law” does not mean it’s not overturnable. All it means is that SCOTUS had addressed the issue before and settled it then for the lower courts.
Hell. Plessy v Ferguson was settled law at one point too.
Finally, as I noted elsewhere, the “certainty” ….
December 6, 2025 at 2:48 PM
enough votes.
Further, even “settled law” does not mean it’s not overturnable. All it means is that SCOTUS had addressed the issue before and settled it then for the lower courts.
Hell. Plessy v Ferguson was settled law at one point too.
Finally, as I noted elsewhere, the “certainty” ….
Further, even “settled law” does not mean it’s not overturnable. All it means is that SCOTUS had addressed the issue before and settled it then for the lower courts.
Hell. Plessy v Ferguson was settled law at one point too.
Finally, as I noted elsewhere, the “certainty” ….
In the ‘90’s it was not considered untouchable.
FFS, it barely survived the Planned Parenthood decision in ‘92, and that was because the conservative O’Connor surprisingly voted in support of keeping Roe.
And then we saw state efforts to undermine Roe as mush possible if/until they got ….
FFS, it barely survived the Planned Parenthood decision in ‘92, and that was because the conservative O’Connor surprisingly voted in support of keeping Roe.
And then we saw state efforts to undermine Roe as mush possible if/until they got ….
December 6, 2025 at 2:45 PM
In the ‘90’s it was not considered untouchable.
FFS, it barely survived the Planned Parenthood decision in ‘92, and that was because the conservative O’Connor surprisingly voted in support of keeping Roe.
And then we saw state efforts to undermine Roe as mush possible if/until they got ….
FFS, it barely survived the Planned Parenthood decision in ‘92, and that was because the conservative O’Connor surprisingly voted in support of keeping Roe.
And then we saw state efforts to undermine Roe as mush possible if/until they got ….
Okay, I’ve had three more follow me since this post.
December 5, 2025 at 11:04 PM
Okay, I’ve had three more follow me since this post.
Yeah, I think it was because I mentioned the line in my writing rather than what the shot said.
December 5, 2025 at 10:39 PM
Yeah, I think it was because I mentioned the line in my writing rather than what the shot said.
It explains it the best especially due to its inconsistencies like claiming that paragraph only addresses “licenses” when it is explicitly mentions “broadcast licenses” for the CBS cases analogous to Halleck.
December 5, 2025 at 10:32 PM
It explains it the best especially due to its inconsistencies like claiming that paragraph only addresses “licenses” when it is explicitly mentions “broadcast licenses” for the CBS cases analogous to Halleck.
So even during the 2016 campaign, such certainty wasn't present when you have the winning guy stating that any appointees he chose would be done with the intent of overturning Roe v. Wade.
December 5, 2025 at 9:29 PM
So even during the 2016 campaign, such certainty wasn't present when you have the winning guy stating that any appointees he chose would be done with the intent of overturning Roe v. Wade.
I mean, FFS, Donald Trump came right out during the Presidential debate in 2016 that he would appoint judges to overturn Roe.
www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/t...
www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/t...
Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case
Trump says he wants abortion legality to be decided by individual states, while Clinton vows to defend abortion rights.
www.cnbc.com
December 5, 2025 at 9:25 PM
I mean, FFS, Donald Trump came right out during the Presidential debate in 2016 that he would appoint judges to overturn Roe.
www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/t...
www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/t...
Oh, look they blocked me rather than attempting to back up their nakedly wrong assertions.
What a fucking surprise.
What a fucking surprise.
December 5, 2025 at 9:20 PM
Oh, look they blocked me rather than attempting to back up their nakedly wrong assertions.
What a fucking surprise.
What a fucking surprise.
nakedly partisan.
I don't remember (and haven't seen) neutral commentators saying she was crazy on this point. In fact, I remember many of those agreeing with her.
ESPECIALLY given McConnell's shenanigans surrounding the Gorsuch nomination.
I don't remember (and haven't seen) neutral commentators saying she was crazy on this point. In fact, I remember many of those agreeing with her.
ESPECIALLY given McConnell's shenanigans surrounding the Gorsuch nomination.
December 5, 2025 at 9:19 PM
nakedly partisan.
I don't remember (and haven't seen) neutral commentators saying she was crazy on this point. In fact, I remember many of those agreeing with her.
ESPECIALLY given McConnell's shenanigans surrounding the Gorsuch nomination.
I don't remember (and haven't seen) neutral commentators saying she was crazy on this point. In fact, I remember many of those agreeing with her.
ESPECIALLY given McConnell's shenanigans surrounding the Gorsuch nomination.
certainty when Dobbs was in front of SCOTUS. I've shown that there wasn't.
B) I've addressed your point in another reply pointing out, with regard to "voters" being told (I assume in 2016) that Roe was untouchable, that the people who "torpedoed" Hilary weren't credible because they were ....
B) I've addressed your point in another reply pointing out, with regard to "voters" being told (I assume in 2016) that Roe was untouchable, that the people who "torpedoed" Hilary weren't credible because they were ....
December 5, 2025 at 9:18 PM
certainty when Dobbs was in front of SCOTUS. I've shown that there wasn't.
B) I've addressed your point in another reply pointing out, with regard to "voters" being told (I assume in 2016) that Roe was untouchable, that the people who "torpedoed" Hilary weren't credible because they were ....
B) I've addressed your point in another reply pointing out, with regard to "voters" being told (I assume in 2016) that Roe was untouchable, that the people who "torpedoed" Hilary weren't credible because they were ....
A) As I stated, my original comments that you replied to was made to someone whose statement was in the context of the current certainly about the Court case in front of SCOTUS and comparing that to the "certainty" to Roe. In such a comparison, you have to look at whether there was such ...
December 5, 2025 at 9:16 PM
A) As I stated, my original comments that you replied to was made to someone whose statement was in the context of the current certainly about the Court case in front of SCOTUS and comparing that to the "certainty" to Roe. In such a comparison, you have to look at whether there was such ...
They both like jerking off two men at once?
Okay, that's just a guess with the Village People, but Trump's dance is proof for him.
Okay, that's just a guess with the Village People, but Trump's dance is proof for him.
December 5, 2025 at 9:09 PM
They both like jerking off two men at once?
Okay, that's just a guess with the Village People, but Trump's dance is proof for him.
Okay, that's just a guess with the Village People, but Trump's dance is proof for him.
But wait ...
JC is my sockpuppet account.
Pure chaos here.
JC is my sockpuppet account.
Pure chaos here.
December 5, 2025 at 9:07 PM
But wait ...
JC is my sockpuppet account.
Pure chaos here.
JC is my sockpuppet account.
Pure chaos here.
There was a reason, after all, why a number of states started passing abortion laws that outright defied Roe as opposed to laws passed in the prior two or more decades that were dancing along the grey areas of Roe.
They knew that it wasn't certain that Roe would be upheld. Quite the opposite.
They knew that it wasn't certain that Roe would be upheld. Quite the opposite.
December 5, 2025 at 9:00 PM
There was a reason, after all, why a number of states started passing abortion laws that outright defied Roe as opposed to laws passed in the prior two or more decades that were dancing along the grey areas of Roe.
They knew that it wasn't certain that Roe would be upheld. Quite the opposite.
They knew that it wasn't certain that Roe would be upheld. Quite the opposite.