Okay — the world has… certainly turned upside down. [Or, more plausibly, one is tempted to… admire the sheer audacity (caucasity!) of the lies told!]
Here we see nominal conservatives advocating for MORE government intervention, in private speech platforms. More. Insane.
The boys at Powerline seem to have forgotten that Saint Ronald Reagan VETOED an attempt to legislate the former (abandoned) FCC rule called the “fairness doctrine” — as both violative of the First Amendment, and an unwarranted intrusion on the owners of FCC broadcast license holders, not to discriminate in viewpoints, on the air. Thus Fox News “viewpoint news” was born, and flourished, BTW.
Now that Fox is largely discredited (as running obvious falsehoods, not just “viewpoints”), and the private clubs of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram (and others) have started curtailing / preventing false statements about elections, and dangerous calls for violent sedition efforts, against our sitting government… on their entirely PRIVATE, non-FCC licensed sites…
Paul wants to have GOP controlled states legislate that Jack must not treat any “viewpoint” badly. I suppose, he hopes to draw a red line (though he never explains how it would be done) between pedophilia online, and simply calling for the killing of government officials. In sum, he thinks the patchwork of state governors (and their captive legislatures, in red states, exclusively of course) — will do a better job than Jack — at making sure Trump can keep lying — over Jack’s… entirely privately owned megaphone. [For my part, I “couldn’t be more surprised, if I woke up with my head sewed to the carpet, Eddie….”]
Here’s what he wrote, in context. It is stunning, that a supposed conservative so fundamentally mis-applies basic First Amendment precepts:
“…Yesterday, I suggested an approach to fighting back against Big Tech’s censorship of conservative voices that I believe merits very serious consideration — state legislation banning viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech….
And the state is, of course, free to offer its own interpretation of what it means to be a “publisher” or “speaker” of information for purposes of this subsection, which courts may choose to accept. By way of further example, the state could also legislate that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing includes a promise to apply policies equally without regard to users’ political opinions, and that it cannot be disclaimed in the providers’ terms of service. There are other options as well. Given the more moderate/conservative composition of our higher level courts now (especially SCOTUS), and the shocking events of late, a state law like this could give courts an opening to fix things….”
This is… lunacy. It would be prima facie…. unconstitutional. Numerous citations available. [Red Lion itself, the seminal 1969 Supreme Court case in the arena, would clearly suggest that internet social chat boards are in no manner “scarce” any longer (not since at least the early 2000s) — and they are thus essentially the opposite of an FCC licensed television or radio monopoly over a given geographic market.]
No state government may tell a private chat club what it must carry on its platform. Just ask Ron Reagan, who felt strongly that even a fairness or balanced approach, where the FCC granted highly lucrative broadcast licenses to own a monopoly on the over the airwaves broadcasting, was antithetical… to a free society. See (as just one of dozens of examples) this:
“…In 1949, the FCC adopted the fairness doctrine, a policy that viewed station licensees as “public trustees” and, as such, responsible for addressing controversial issues of public importance. The key requirement was that stations allowed opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on these issues.
Later, in 1967, two corollary doctrines were added. The first was the political editorial rule, requiring that if a station editorialized either for or against a candidate for public office, the station had to notify the disfavored candidate within 24 hours and allow him/her to reply to the editorial; the second was the personal attack rule, which states that when a person or group’s character or integrity is impugned during the discussion of a controversial issue, the station must notify the person within one week, and offer a reasonable time for response.
By the 1980s, many stations saw the FCC rules as an unnecessary burden. Some journalists considered the fairness doctrine a violation of the First Amendment rights of free speech and free press; they felt reporters should be able to make their own decisions about balancing stories. In order to avoid the requirement of presenting contrasting viewpoints, some journalists chose not to cover certain controversial issues at all. In addition, the political climate of the Reagan administration favored deregulation. When the fairness doctrine came before the courts in 1987, they decided that since the doctrine was not mandated by Congress, it did not have to be enforced. FCC suspended all but the two corollary doctrines at this time.
As this was happening, Congress passed a bill to make the fairness doctrine into law. However, President Reagan vetoed the legislation and there were insufficient votes to override the veto. In 2000, when the FCC failed to justify the two remaining corollary rules, the political editorial rule and the personal attack rule were repealed….”
Stand back now, from the bark of the trees — and marvel at the green forest here: supposed hard right conservatives now want to legislate “must carry” viewpoint based content, free of charge.
Note that this is not closing out paid advertising. The suggestion from these fake conservatives is that the government may order private chat boards to allow dangerous sedition on their private networks.
If there was ever a wolf in sheep’s clothing — these boys… are it.
Do not fall for it. The federal courts positively will not fall for it.
All of you may write Hinderaker or Mirengoff on this, directly at this address, from time to time:
powerlinefeedback@gmail.com
Onward, grinning….
Powerline Lies... 
2 thoughts on “In Which Paul M. Abandons His… [Former] Law License: He Thinks “Government” Can “Legislate” The “Carrying” Of Private “Viewpoints””