The Fairness Doctrine was not struck down as unconstitutional by the courts, the supreme court upheld it several times. It was Reagan's FCC that unilaterally struck it down. And that led directly to the rise in prominence of right-wing talk starting with Rush Limbaugh which became the template for other right-wing broadcasts including Fox News.

My mistake, it was indeed undone by the FCC rather than the courts. I could have sworn it was undone by SCOTUS, but I guess a refresher is needed every once in a while.

Regardless, I think the main point from the proceedings is: it was only found constitutional because of limited airwaves available (i.e. physical constraint of the medium, or exclusive government licensing). The same rule would not be constitutional if it applied broadly to "the press."[0]

In that sense, my point remains: there's nothing intrinsically exclusive about the medium of Google's websites that would prevent another from competing for the same "airwaves" (other than their perceived popularity), so a requirement that Google shares its "airtime" with others would not be supported by the precedent.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Decision...

I think the fairness doctrine is a great litmus test for intellectual honestly on this topic. Anyone who is in favor of regulating Google and Facebook's speech should also be in favor of regulating Fox News and other platforms that are dominated by conservative politics.

No.

I'll classify Fox News with other media, like Vox and Slate and Buzzfeed. (for the articles and shows at least, not necessarily the paid advertisements)

I'll classify Google and Facebook with other communication platforms, like T-Mobile and FedEx. Paid advertisements probably go in this category too, even if appearing within the other category.

Why would you classify Google and Facebook in the same category as T-Mobile?

Individuals use them to communicate. Personal messages ("Happy birthday to Root Axis!") are passed around by ordinary people. FedEx, T-Mobile, Google, and Facebook are all similar in this way.

Individuals who decide to run news segment on Fox News get denied, just the same as they would if they decide to run an article in Slate or Salon or The Atlantic. To communicate on a platform in that category, one must get hired or convince an employee that an interview (which would be tightly controlled) is beneficial to the employee.

Well there is no such distinction with regard to current law, so I'll assume you're discussing what you believe ought to be.

So from that perspective, why should Google be treated differently from Fox News simply because Fox News has a higher standard for publication than Google?

In current law, the distinction is called common carrier status. Enforcement is lax and irregular, and it mostly isn't being properly applied to the tech giants.

We don't let the phone company disconnect phone calls in which people complain about the phone company, or about China, or about the governor. We don't let FedEx decide that you can't ship an unauthorized biography of the FedEx CEO.

Common carrier status has never applied to news media. The closest we ever had was the fairness doctrine, which is gone and wasn't the same thing anyway. Fox News is clearly news media. Most of what we call "Google" is clearly not news media.

> Common carrier status has never applied to news media

It never applied to websites either, so why do you want it to apply to websites but not "news media"?

Do you believe that Fox News should be allowed to delete comments from foxnews.com?

We invent a new technology by which to transfer things, and suddenly the existing law doesn't apply? New technology is inherently lawless? Being "with computers" makes it different?

I don't think so. It's the same old stuff, merely with a technology upgrade. Be thankful, so the first amendment doesn't only protect quill pens and lead movable type.

The comments on foxnews.com are at the borderline, so it wouldn't be bad to flip a coin. A reasonable approach would be that deletion is restricted to crude insults and off-topic rants. It doesn't really matter though, because the foxnews.com comments sit on the border between being a publication and being a generic public communications medium. There is no point splitting hairs.

You're the one splitting hairs; a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner belongs to the owner, if you believe the prerogatives of private ownership should be a function of popularity then there is no reason to carve out exceptions for media companies on different mediums. It is not a reasonable outcome that google would be prohibited from moderating their platform with respect to their values yet Fox News would be permitted to curate their platform with respect to their own. The litmus test seems effective.

Riiight...

Verizon's phone network is a platform that is privately owned and financed by the owner.

I think you're failing a litmus test here, unless you really believe that Verizon should have the right to drop phone calls that are politically offensive to Verizon executives.

The same goes for FedEx's logistics/transportation network. It too is privately owned and financed by the owner. Imagine that it were run by an executive who decided that the terms of service would include disposal of democrat campaign materials. Send a box of Biden yard signs, and they go into a dumpster. The tracking number just disappears from the system.

It's probably hard to see that Google is very much like Verizon when you happen to like Google's bias.

> "Why would we expect to be able to force Google to host speech they disagree with?"

So what Google is doing with this particular epithet is fine is what you're saying? Sure hope there's no other cause that you champion that Google decides they disagree with someday.