Surely, this definition has to be updated to include the Internet:
airwave (noun)
The medium used for the transmission of radio and television signals. Often used in the plural.
The airwaves are not private property —— they belong to the American people —— yet the federal government (the FCC) giving Big Tech the Right to censor on the Internet is another step in the government’s conspiracy to eliminate freedom of speech. In fact, the Federal Communications Commission never protects freedom of speech. In short: Big Tech is an instrument of government tyranny exactly like print press and television:
The only justification for a free press is when it maintains an antagonistic relationship towards government; every government —— liberal and conservative, democracy and dictatorship. America’s free press has not been antagonistic toward government in more than a century. Television actually promotes government as well as glorifying government parasites regardless of what they do; hence, freedom of the press is the one First Amendment freedom that is not worth defending.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...57#post2931557
Notice that the press would still enjoy freedom of speech like the rest of us, but they would have to defend freedom of speech as a matter of self-interest instead of only defending their constitutional privilege while they feed the rest us to Socialist/Communist wolves.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...99#post3181699
Basically, newspapers are protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of the press includes the Right to censor everything the federal government disagrees with.
NOTE: Hollywood Communists began using somebody else’s cameras to preach their ideology in talking pictures. Television followed suit by using transmitters Communists do not own.
Newspapers always censored content, while Communists were never able to force newspapers to print big government garbage —— Communists had to settle for censorship.
Radio and television gave Communists the Fairness Doctrine (1949 - 1987). Obviously, the First Amendment prohibited the FCC from including newspapers:
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
There is no doubt that a little money will change hands before the Supreme Court gives billionaire Big Tech Moguls everything they want:
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis from implementing a law combatting Big Tech censorship that allows citizens to sue over content-moderation policies.
U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction in which he sided with two trade associations that argued parts of the law may violate the First Amendment, the Fox Business Network reported.
The trade groups contend the law is unconstitutional because it requires social media sites to host speech they otherwise would not and inteferes with their editorial judgment.
A DeSantis spokesman told the Daily Caller's Thomas Catenacci that Florida will immediately appeal the ruling.
"We are disappointed by Judge Hinkle’s ruling and disagree with his determination that the U.S. Constitution protects Big Tech’s censorship of certain individuals and content over others," the spokesman said.
In February, DeSantis announced the law would include a ban on censorship of political candidates and mandatory opt-outs of content filters.
"What began as a group of upstart companies from the West Coast has since transformed into an industry of monopoly communications platforms that monitor, influence, and control the flow of information in our country and among our citizens, and they do this to an extent hitherto unimaginable," he said in a speech Feb. 1.
The judge took issue with the fact that the legislation was an effort to rein in providers that were deemed "too large and too liberal."
"Balancing the exchange of ideas among private speakers is not a legitimate governmental interest," he said.
One of the trade associations in the case, NetChoice, said it was "elated" by the ruling.
"America’s judiciary system is designed to protect our constitutional rights, and today’s ruling is no different, ensuring that Florida’s politically motivated law does not force Floridians to endure racial epithets, aggressive homophobia, pornographic material, beheadings, or other gruesome content just to use the internet," the group said in a statement.
In his February speech, DeSantis said the Big Tech companies "have changed from neutral platforms that provided Americans with the freedom to speak to enforcers of preferred narratives."
"Consequently, these platforms have played an increasingly decisive role in elections, and have negatively impacted Americans who dissent from orthodoxies favored by the Big Tech cartel," he said.
It's regarded as the most aggressive range of regulatory and legislative measures against the Silicon Valley giants by a U.S. state.
Among the regulations in the Florida bill:
● Mandatory opt-outs from content filters;
● A private right of action for citizens against tech companies that violate this condition;
● Fines of $100,000 per day on tech companies that suspend political candidates;
● Daily fines for any tech company that uses its "content and user-related algorithms to suppress or prioritize the access of any content related to a political candidate or cause on the ballot";
● Requirements for greater transparency;
● Disclosure requirements for tech companies that favor one candidate over another;
● And power for the Florida attorney general to sue tech companies that violate the state’s Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act.
DeSantis noted the censorship of Donald Trump by Twitter, Facebook and others, and the removal of the growing Twitter-alternative Parler from the internet.
"The core issue here is this: are consumers going to have the choice to consume the information they choose, or are oligarchs in Silicon Valley going to make those choices for us? No group of people should exercise such power, especially not tech billionaires in Northern California," he said.
One final bit about government control:
The Ministry of Propaganda (FCC) was losing ground and something had to be done; hence, the Fairness Doctrine stopped the bleeding until President Reagan abolished it 1986. That was followed by the Internet.
The government fought back when analogue was replaced with digital transmission. The result was creating hundreds of advertising platforms akin to a newspaper adding a hundred pages of advertising for every paragraph of news. I say paragraph because that is all you will find in the NY Times, the WaPo et al.
In short: The airwaves belong to the advertising industry. The cat was out of the bag when the government all but did away with analog television transmissions. Americans who supposedly “owned” the airwaves did not get a vote when hundreds of new advertising platforms were created by digital transmissions.
The worst part was that digital increased the number of parasites taking down huge tax dollar salaries on cable networks. Those salaries are paid by the advertising tax deduction which is passed onto every American whether or not they own a TV.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?121584-Sink-The-Garbage&p=3123873#post3123873
Verified User
The Airwaves Conspiracy
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks