Where Is The Line Between "Freedom of The Press" and "Treason?"

[DarkNoon]

The problem is that any attempt to enforce truth immediately raises the question of who gets to decide what the truth is.

This is where I think the real dilemma is.

If the government becomes the authority deciding what is true and false, you have created an extraordinarily dangerous slippery slope. Eventually inconvenient truths can simply be labeled misinformation.

But pointing out that danger cannot become an excuse to let media organizations knowingly publish false information without consequence either. Don't let the this excuse be the reason the media cannot be held accountable at all. That is simply nihilism at its best.

There still has to be accountability when an outlet knowingly lies to the public.

I don't have a clean answer to how you accomplish both.

I understand the desire to enforce standards of truth and accuracy. I also understand why giving the government the authority to determine truth should make everyone uncomfortable. INCLUDING ME.

The problem is figuring out how to hold people accountable for knowingly spreading false information without creating an authority that can eventually decide what everyone is allowed to believe is true.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

Nowadays treason is if the press exercise the freedom to report what they should.

The problem is when the press reports what they should not.

 

[DarkNoon]

I also want to make my position on OPSEC clear because I have been very consistent about this for a long time.

I am probably one of the strongest advocates here for free and open information, transparency, and access to original sources. In many cases I take transparency further than mainstream media does.

But I am also an American.

When there is a realistic possibility that information could help an enemy or put American or allied troops at greater risk, I cannot justify amplifying it simply because it is technically public.

Public does not automatically mean responsible to repost.

I have repeatedly asked members to exercise voluntary restraint when it comes to real time military movements, locations, interception footage, impact footage, identifiable landmarks, aircraft movements, and similar information during active or potentially imminent military operations.

I have even withheld information from my own reporting for that reason.

That does not mean I support government censorship or preventing people from discussing publicly available information. In fact, several times I have specifically said these requests were voluntary and not moderation rules.

My position is simply that freedom to publish information does not remove the responsibility to consider what publishing that information might actually do.

If something I post could realistically make an enemy's job easier or increase the danger to my own troops, then I would rather not be the person who helped spread it.

For anyone wondering whether this is a new position of mine, it is not. Here are previous examples:
A PLEA FOR DISCRETION... Regarding U.S. Military Movements in the Event of Strikes on Iran
[A PLEA FOR DISCRETION] Regarding India (भारत-Bhaarat) Military Movements
Escalating European Crisis | Sep. 25th/Oct. 11th | Discussions
Iran Regime Collapsing & US/IDF Intervention Imminent | Jan. 1st-14th | Reports
Middle East Regional Wars | Discussions
DEFCON 4 | US-Iran-Israel Hostilities May Breakout Shortly | Feb. 2nd/28th | Reports

And these are just the ones I could find. So don't say I am not consistent.

 

[william]

ABC Stations Are Undergoing Early FCC License Review. Here’s What You Need to Know
In the coming months, the Federal Communications Commission will decide whether to allow the eight local broadcast stations owned and operated by ABC to keep their licenses.

The decision comes after the FCC took the rare step in April to direct the stations — located in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and Houston; Los Angeles, San Francisco and Fresno, California; and Durham, North Carolina — to submit renewal applications years before their licenses were set to expire.

The FCC cited an investigation into alleged discriminatory hiring at ABC’s parent company, Disney. Since then, ABC has asked viewers to support the stations and argued in filings that the FCC is unconstitutionally retaliating against the network for exercising its First Amendment-protected right to make editorial choices. The First Amendment limits the government, including federal agencies like the FCC, from punishing a news organization because of its protected speech or editorial decisions.
In its announcement establishing the early renewal process for these stations, the FCC reiterated what it had said in its order to ABC: that the FCC “has been investigating whether Disney’s ABC engaged in prohibited practices by hiring, promoting, compensating, and/or providing workplace opportunities to people based on race, gender, or other protected characteristics in violation of federal nondiscrimination laws.”

The FCC also opened another door in that announcement, saying that “calling the licenses in now for early renewal also provides the FCC the opportunity to determine whether the ABC Stations have been operating in the public interest.”
The Communications Act established the FCC’s regulatory authority and empowers the agency to ensure broadcasters act in the public interest. The agency has this unique regulatory power over broadcasters because of these stations’ scarcity (the idea that there are a limited number of broadcast radio and television stations that exist) and pervasiveness (the idea that these stations are wide-reaching and accessible). The FCC’s authority extends only to free, over-the-air stations, not streaming and cable channels. ​

FCC Authority Over Streaming and Cable Channels​

Yes — the FCC has regulatory authority over cable television systems, but it does not currently have the legal authority to regulate live TV streaming services in the same way it regulates cable.

Cable Television Authority​

The FCC’s jurisdiction over cable television is rooted in the Communications Act of 1934 and reinforced by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984. The Supreme Court confirmed in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co. (1968) that the FCC has authority over cable systems to preserve local broadcast service and ensure equitable distribution of programming Federal Communications Commission. This authority covers franchise requirements, signal carriage, program rules, and other operational standards for cable operators.

Streaming Services and FCC Authority​

While the FCC regulates cable, it does not currently have statutory authority to regulate live TV streaming services such as YouTube TV, Hulu + Live TV, or Fubo Cord Cutters News. These services are not classified as “cable” under the 1984 Cable Act, and the FCC has stated it cannot legally impose cable-style rules on them. This means the FCC cannot require streaming providers to negotiate directly with local broadcast stations or apply the same carriage and ownership rules that apply to cable Cord Cutters News.

Current FCC Involvement in Streaming​

Although the FCC cannot regulate streaming like cable, it does address related issues:

• Net Neutrality rules (repealed in 2017) affect how internet-based streaming services are treated in terms of internet access FasterCapital.
• The FCC may issue guidance or policy statements on competition, content access, and viewer choice, but these are not binding regulations on streaming providers.
• The FCC’s role in streaming is more about policy and advocacy than direct regulatory control.

Key Takeaways​

• Cable TV: Fully regulated by the FCC under federal law.
• Live TV Streaming: Not regulated by the FCC in the same way; no statutory authority to impose cable-style rules.
• Policy Influence: The FCC can still influence industry practices through guidance, but it cannot enforce cable-like obligations on streaming services.

Bottom line: The FCC’s authority covers cable channels, but not streaming services — at least not under current law. Any changes to this would require new legislation from Congress.

​

 

[william]

FCC Authority Over Satellite Channels​

Yes — the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has authority over satellite channels, including satellite television, because the Communications Act requires licensing for any commercial communications transmitted via satellite to, from, or within the United States.

Legal basis​

The FCC’s jurisdiction over satellite communications is rooted in the Communications Act of 1934, which grants the agency authority to regulate “interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable” Wikipedia+1. This means that any commercial satellite transmission — whether it carries television, audio, data, or voice — must be licensed by the FCC.

Scope of regulation​

Under the Communications Act, both space stations (satellites in orbit) and earth stations (ground-based receiving/transmitting equipment) must be licensed by the FCC Federal Communications Commission. This applies to satellite television services, which are a major part of the FCC’s satellite communications portfolio.

The FCC’s Satellite Communications rules (47 CFR Part 25) set out requirements for:

• Station authorization for both space and earth stations.
• Licensing procedures, including applications, fees, and renewal terms.
• Technical and operational standards for equipment and networks.
• Coordination with other countries under international agreements.

Satellite television specifically​

The FCC also regulates satellite television under its Media Bureau, overseeing market structure, competition, and consumer protection issues. This includes rules for direct-to-home (DTH) services, market modifications, and compliance with the STELA Reauthorization Act Federal Communications Commission.

Key points​

• Licensing is mandatory for all commercial satellite communications in the U.S.
• Both space and ground stations are subject to FCC oversight.
• Satellite TV channels are part of the FCC’s regulatory scope, along with other satellite-based services.

In short: The FCC’s authority over satellite channels is explicit and comprehensive, covering licensing, technical standards, and market regulation for all commercial satellite communications within the United States Federal Communications Commission+2.

ABC Stations Are Undergoing Early FCC License Review. Here’s What You Need to Know

The FCC has directed the eight TV stations owned and operated by ABC to submit early license renewal applications. What does this mean?

www.freedomforum.org

 

[Gargolu]

I'm really surprised she wasn't convicted for treason for that. Isn't that the definition of the word?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. - Article III, Section 3

there is a great many questions that came up why she wasn't.....maybe she was on a watch list after that since that time?.

 

[Publius]

Extended duty takes a toll. Lincoln needs to be rotated out.

Yes it’s an extended deployment, no one’s disputing that. But it’s not unprecedented.
In 2019-2020 the Nimitz was extended from 6-10 months
“extensions commonly land around ~9 months, and extreme cases have run ~295–326 days (about 9.7–10.7 months). Forbes1”

 

[Publius]

I can sympathize with a lot of the frustration here when it comes to misinformation, whether it comes from my own government, the American media, or countries like Russia, Iran, or China.

I'm speaking specifically about the United States because I'm American and that is primarily what this thread is discussing.

I understand why people want the media held accountable when it knowingly publishes false information. There should be standards of accuracy and consequences for deliberately misleading the public.

There was a period, particularly from roughly the 1950s through the 1970s, when American media operated within a much more shared informational environment. Left leaning and right leaning outlets disagreed, but they were generally working from many of the same basic facts and sources.

I DO NOT think we can simply recreate that environment today.

The problem is that any attempt to enforce truth immediately raises the question of who gets to decide what the truth is.

Just let them fight it out.
Truth will either be recognized or it won’t.
Remember at the time even American journalist were encouraging de-kulakization.
“it’s all good brother comrade Joe knows what he’s doing.
Same thing was vocalized for Mao. comrade Ho and fearless leader Pol pot.

Politics contrary to popular opinion is a contact sport