LGBTQ rights group argues Fox News shouldn't air in Canada

[Spazito]

An advocacy group that wants the CRTC to ban Fox News says the network's "abusive content" extends beyond its divisive personalities such as recently fired host Tucker Carlson.

Fox News should be banned from Canadian airwaves because it has "repeatedly and regularly" violated broadcasting standards with content that subjects many groups to hate, Egale Canada is arguing in its formal submission to Canada's broadcasting regulator.

The LGBTQ rights group is dismissing Fox's argument that the application to remove its news network from Canadian cable TV packages is "moot" in the wake of prime-time host Tucker Carlson's ousting in late April.

snip

The CRTC opened what's called a Part 1 application in early May seeking public comments, with a June 2 deadline for written submissions.

More than 7,000 submissions were published on the CRTC's website; many of them supported a ban on Fox News while others said the move would be unreasonable and a violation of press freedoms and freedom of expression.

more

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/fox-news-crtc-ban-canada-1.6875894

[marble falls]

1. I get the argument.

[Spazito]

2. The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television & Telecommunications Commission)...

has done this before, the banned RT. I hope they do the same here. From the article:

"The CRTC can delist an international TV channel previously authorized for distribution in Canada if it believes the content would violate regulations that apply to licensed Canadian broadcasters.

That happened last year in the case of Russia's state-run broadcaster, RT, which was banned from distribution in Canada following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The CRTC said that RT's content is "likely to expose the Ukrainian people to hatred or contempt on the basis of their race, national or ethnic origin.""

[marble falls]

3. It's a delicate balance between speech without prior restaint and laws that limit certain speech ...

... I want recourse but short of chilling free speech it is a delicate thing.

Reminds me of what a certain fascist with an accent once said, 'One of the beauties of Fascism is it requires the application of fascist tecniques to defeat it.' I think I paraphrased it accurately.

[Spazito]

4. fox is free to spew their hate speech...

just not on our airwaves, hopefully. There is a difference between free speech and hate speech, imo.

It is a fairly long process so we won't know for a while which way it will go.

[marble falls]

5. I get the argument. I'm still hoping sunshine has an effect. Some people will gladly pay to ...

... be lied to, and so we all can get lied to if we aren't careful of where we get our news from. We're obviously aren't two of those who want being lied to.

[Spazito]

6. I definitely get what you're saying...

this kind of action shouldn't be taken lightly or without time taken to investigate whether the ban is warranted or not in the bigger picture.

fox news is a subscription channel so people do have to pay to receive it, I sure don't have it on my channel lineup. Those who actually pay to receive it are, imo, the most vulnerable to their hate speech and support them because of it. Hatred against those who are LGBTQ2S+ has increased in Canada as it has elsewhere, especially the transgendered and I believe fox is partly to blame for that.

[marble falls]

7. I think you're right about the Fox contribution to uncivil behavior. It's been banned from the ...

... Veteran's facilities I use for my health care for the fights it caused. I will be paying attention to how Canada gets Fox under control. Maybe you all can show us how to get it done in a way that would pass US Constitutional muster.

[Spazito]

8. The difference is we have hate speech laws...

which legally allows the CRTC to do this but the US doesn't have the same so it would be nearly impossible to do it there I think.

[marble falls]

9. We do have hate speech laws. Enforcing them against deep pocketed defendents like Fox ...

... is difficult, especially once the speech is old and if there were no other crimes attached. The prior restraint clause kicks in. You have to prove the hate speaker had intent to make a civil disturbance and thought crime is tough to prove.

Sometimes our only defense is the law and it's protections cut both directions.

[Spazito]

10. From what I've been able to find, the USSC reaffirmed, in 2017, that...

there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment in the Matal v Tam case.

I wasn't able to fine any national 'hate speech' laws but maybe there are States that have them.

I did find there are 'hate crime' laws.

[marble falls]

11. There are no Federal hate speech laws. Most states have them and more have hate speech ...

... "enhancements" to violent crimes that increase penalties. And these can be difficult to convict on and sometimes just get used to plea bargain the criminal into pleading guilty to the original crime.

What can I say. It all reads like solid law but sometimes justice is a process like sausage making. Enjoy them but don't look into the process. I hope Canada has success with Fox that perhaps we can learn from.

[Spazito]

12. It is sausage making for sure...

I am not sure we will succeed but time will tell.