Eegore wrote on 10/21/24 at 05:49:48:Isn’t the issue that news organizations enjoy certain legal protections given their existence is necessary and as such, purposely publishing edited content for the sole purpose of promoting a candidate as opposed to editing for content such as length while purposely giving the impression the content has not been edited?
The allegations is CBS edited a Harris answer to make her look more competent. If that’s true, they deserved to be called out.
I agree here. While plenty of people online manipulate answers to questions etc. to alter an interview, it is different for organizations like CBS, on paper.
Facebook on the other hand has never been considered a credible news organization. It gets it's legal protections from a different set of laws intended for totally different reasons. They have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, and you have no right to use their property. Don't like what they do with it? Stop using it.
I’m not sure that’s correct. Or rather, I should say I’m not sure that would be legally upheld upon review by courts, in particular, higher courts further up the line.
I haven’t done any research and haven’t read anything on this topic but I feel like situations where rulings based on the broadly defined “common law” could come into play. I would think that courts could decide that because Facebook is so widely used by “credible news organizations“ to disseminate information and in fact used by the government to get public service announcements out, it wouldn’t surprise me if a court ruled that they are in fact, a news organizations, at least in situations where they are “reporting” something with national interest, such as an election.
Pages: 
