Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[delphonso]

Yeah, I mean I can see why a capitalist would want this law removed, but it's this eternal creep toward monopolies that is just the worst.

[wierd]

The issue is that it creates barriers to entry for new players, as established movie makers have a vested interest to prevent that happening, AND, have greater financial and material resources to leverage to assure that outcome, when combined with "Nope, we dont have to show your movie. Go away."


EG, Disney has a lot of resources.  If they use those resources to buy up every scrap of potentially plausible real estate that could be used for movie houses, and then floods them with nothing but wall to wall screenings of Mickey and Friends (or whatever other properties they buy up and then subvert/pervert/corrupt/otherwise Disneyfy), then there suddenly is a complete lack of showing venue for basically anything else.

Why make movies in competition with Disney, if you are unable to show them?


The alternative would be things like Netflix and pals--  Disney will have a much harder time controlling that, since there is no meatspace real estate to monopolize and control. The most they can do is try to force abusive property agreements with the streaming services, and/or, try to buy them out or litigate them abusively.


The restrictions were put in place precisely to prevent one company's "Vision!!" from dominating all of the nation's local cinema culture.  Rather than see it as a heavy-handed restriction on agency, see it as an enforcement of 1st amendment rights for other media companies, so that their media can be presented as well.

Rather than sunset it, it should have simply been revised for the modern era.

[Rolan7]

I bristle at calling it a first amendment issue.  People have a right to unrestricted speech/expression.  That's not free as in beer, and it has little to do with corporations competing (even if those corporations happen to sell media).

A fundamental threat to our democracy has always been that we don't have anti-monopoly measures in our Constitution.  And yet we (outside the most idealistic ancaps) have seen what corporations due without regulation.  Perhaps the truly free market works for small communities (heehee I'm clever) but large-scale corporations simply lack connection with their customers and employees.  We've seen this throughout history by their tendency to fucking murder their customers and employees, even when we go beyond the Constitution and tell them to stahp.  Even when we fine them, they just add that with their PR spin departments as "costs of doing business".  Large corporations are insulated from morality by shareholder-obligation, privatized media, and the alienating effects of megawealth on executives.

All this to say - it's not a First Amendment issue, but it sure is an existential threat to our democracy and lives, so yeah.  Regulate the damn megacorps.  That's not really a controversial opinion nowadays, but we're rolling back protections anyway because of bought representatives.

[wierd]

You are forgetting the effect of disruptive media on public perception and concisousness.  The various film festivals, however, HAVE NOT.

Cinema is a powerful form of artistic and cultural expression, that without this kind of restriction, would be muzzled and leashed as being "Off Brand".


It's how you slyly give the oligarchs complete control over cultural expression, one form of media at a time.

[Reelya]

You're not arguing against what Rolan7 is saying however wierd. What Rolan said was that it's not a *first amendment* issue. The first amendment doesn't come into this. He agreed it's a problem, but it's just not a *first amendment* problem. The first amendment is fundamentally anti-regulatory. It restricts the government from passing specific laws about this. So in other words if you left that to the first amendment, it would be 100% monopoly city. The government has no specified right under the first amendment to regulate the media in any way shape or form.

Recall that the Paramount Decision was as a result of the judiciary, and it was done on the back of anti-trust laws, which aren't specific to the media, but to commerce in general. To get it overturned, Trump's DoJ had to take the matter to court. So it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

[wierd]

I would argue that it is not a *hard* 1st amendment issue. It is a "soft" one.  A hard issue would be forbidding certain kinds of communication explicitly.  This is a mere implicit one.


A corrolary would be to say, for example, Facebook wins the social media world hands-down. They own all social media platforms, and have wormed their way into controlling even legacy methods of such digital communication, like email, IRC, and pals.  If you want to communicate text over the internet, you have to use Facebook. Now-- Throw into that an onerous TOS that forbids you speaking about certain things using their service.

Suddenly, you have massively curtailed ability to share expressions of ideas freely.  Facebook is not a government agency, so "It's not first amendment!" chorus.  But, is freedom of speech restricted all the same? Yes--- Is that power ultimately descended from the complicity of the government, via enforcement through the courts? YES.


Similar concept here.  Disney would never show a political film detailing the very lengthly history of abuses the company has performed against artists, performers, and those critical of the brand, for instance.  Such speech is a legally protected form of speech in fact-- but Disney, being a private company, has no obligation to show such films, and in fact, has every reason to prevent such knowledge from being disseminated.  Giving full control over both production and distribution of a form of media to a single actor, is absolute nonsense, if your stated objective is to assure the free and open expression of ideas, which is what the 1st amendment codifies.

Specifically, the violation of the amendment, is the permissivity of the govt to permit this condition to manifest, when the 1st amendment asserts that the government is not allowed to take such an action.  It is still a 1st amendment issue, just not a hard one.  It's a soft one, that occurs because of permissivity of government for a 3rd party to perform the restriction instead of doing it itself.  The power to prevent the outside messages being broadcast still ultimately comes from the govt, via the courts and penal system. 

[Reelya]

You have it the wrong way around however. That's not what the first amendment says.

you mean "free speech" in the abstract sense, but that's not synonymous with the first amendment.

People who say that if they get banned on twitter it's a "first amendment issue" are equally wrong.

how is not having laws that restrict what a cinema can do in any way part of the first amendment. The first amendment merely states that congress will pass no laws restricting what the press can do.

---

Also bringing up a salient point about the Paramount Decision from before: someone said that it would be same as you choosing what movies to play in your own house, but that's not what it's about. You can choose to play only Disney movies, you could even open a private Disney-only cinema and run that legally, if you so chose. But you're not affiliated with Disney, that's the point, you're making that as an independent choice, so that wouldn't come under anti-trust laws. It's the collusion that makes it an anti-trust case.

[wierd]

That gets into a legal minefield over who and what constitutes a press agency or press worker.

that challenge has appeared frequently in the past 10 years. Established press agencies think they are the only agencies that can be considered press, and that bloggers cannot be considered such, for instance-- and use that to restrict press badges being granted, etc.


You missed the thrust of my statement though--  Passing laws that enable companies to restrict such things, (via ownership of the entire medium of communication, and imposition of a private TOS that is allowed under contract laws, which are indeed ratified by the congresses of the states of the nation, and unified under federal statutes ratified by the federal congress--- See for example, the DMCA's anticircumvention bullshit, which codifies such exclusivity directly into law.)  is an abrogation of this constitutional right, when and if those laws are used in such a fashion.  The demonstration that those laws are being used in such a fashion, requires the government to address the legal situation; not make it easier to perform the wrong.  The amendment says they were never allowed to make that kind of law to begin with.  That it was a round-about way of performing the deed, and not "Let it be hereby known that Disney shall control 100% production and distribution of all cinema in the USA."  (or worse "Let it be known that producing cinema of a subject matter we find objectionable shall henceforth be a punishable offense" )in terms of overtness, is quibbling.


Basically, the 1st amendment becomes pointless and not worth the ink or parchment it is written with, if the definition of "press" is so narrow as to allow only large and controlled agencies to qualify for the title, such that investigation and reporting on contentious issues never happens.

Further, asserting that the complicity of the government (as manifest through the enforcement of laws that curtail such dissemination of information when it *IS* collected, and dissemination is sought) because "Well, that's through a private interest! Not part of this government, so not my problem!", is an abrogation of the legal statute itself-- since laws were created for the purpose of that curtailment-- just not EXPLICITLY so.

[Reelya]

That gets into a legal minefield over who and what constitutes a press agency or press worker.

No mate, just no.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Unless you read "make no law" as "totally make a law".

This isn't the legislation you're looking for.

The first amendment does one thing, and one thing exactly on this matter, and prevent the government from passing laws that restrict the press. If someone else does something that you believe restricts freedom of expression, then there's no actual recourse to the First Amendment here, since the First Amendment just says what the government isn't allowed to do. If Twitter de-platforms Nazis for example, the First Amendment is totally silent on that matter. The government not being allowed to laws about "Free Speech" in no way obligates the government to ban de-platforming or regulate what types of speech are on what private platforms.

The anti-trust laws as applied to cinemas are a restriction that would come under the first amendment as a breach, however the only reason they were applicable is because they focused on the commerce part, and separate sections of the constitution allow the federal government a role in regulation of commerce. Those are the laws you're after.

Also note the loophole here that the First Amendment totally doesn't say that Trump can't just ban MSNBC if he so chooses: Trump isn't congress.

[wierd]

Indeed-- regulation of commerce has been heavily abused;  That does not mean that a violation of 1st amendment has not occurred. It simply demonstrates HOW.


the creation of the laws which enabled that circumvention of the 1st amendment, are illegal per the 1st amendment.  Since not all such situations in commerce law will have such attachments, the prohibition does not prevent congress from administering commerce-- It just prevents creation of laws that would enable commercial prohibition of freedoms of speech. 

"Commerce is whatever we say it means, and includes things explicitly excluded elsewhere!! NO, THAT IS WHAT WE SAY IT MEANS!!" (threat of violence and imprisonment)

is not really a valid response, IMO.


Also, the grammar of the sentence does not make sense when considered as exclusivity to the press.  "or" is not used in that capacity.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Attempting to say it is "Only applicable to religious and journalistic speech" is completely ignoring that "or".  the correct grammar to use there (since there is a semicolon), would be like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

[Reelya]

It's not a violation of the first amendment however. Having 100% of everything owned by Disney doesn't violate what's written in the actual document. It just says Congress can't pass laws. Disney isn't under that obligation.

There's nothing written in there that says congress is compelled to pass laws if you believe another non-governmental entity is abridging your right to be heard.

[scriver]

So since there are no press printers any more, the 1st amendment doesn't refer to any media.

I don't think that's the case at all.

[wierd]

It's not a violation of the first amendment however. Having 100% of everything owned by Disney doesn't violate what's written in the actual document. It just says Congress can't pass laws. Disney isn't under that obligation.

Contract law that enables them to force the position, especially ones that fall under federal statutes due to commerce regulation, certainly does make it a problem.  The existence of such laws, are what make it POSSIBLE for disney to own them in such a capacity.


Such laws then, defacto, abridge the right of freedom of speech, which then is a violation of the 1st amendment.

[Reelya]

So since there are no press printers any more, the 1st amendment doesn't refer to any media.

I don't think that's the case at all.

non sequitur. the first amendment only says one thing: it restricts congress from passing censorship laws. I posted the entire thing, the relevant portion is literally one sentence long. It's the same thing no matter what form you say "press" takes.

There's nothing in there saying that Congress has to, or can, regulate speech on any platform. Idiots just go "mah first amendment rights!" whenever anyone tells them to shut up. But that misses the point that other people aren't actually bound by a clause that says "Congress may not ..." Unless you're actually passing a law in congress you block anyone you like. Just congress cannot.

It's not a violation of the first amendment however. Having 100% of everything owned by Disney doesn't violate what's written in the actual document. It just says Congress can't pass laws. Disney isn't under that obligation.

Contract law that enables them to force the position, especially ones that fall under federal statutes due to commerce regulation, certainly does make it a problem.  The existence of such laws, are what make it POSSIBLE for disney to own them in such a capacity.


Such laws then, defacto, abridge the right of freedom of speech, which then is a violation of the 1st amendment.

But that's simply the job of other laws to enforce, which is why the Paramount Decision was based on the federal right to regulate commerce, and nothing to do with the First Amendment, which is my entire point. It's tilting at windmills, at wording that's not even there with an interpretation no Supreme Court will ever use.

For example, a newspaper may write whatever they like, they can be 100% biased and only print letters from people that agree with them. This is not a first-amendment violation. You can also own as many newspapers as you like, even all the newspapers. That's also not a first-amendment violation. But it is an anti-trust violation, since it cuts competing voices out of the market, so that's why these things are always fought as anti-trust violations and not "first amendment" violations. There are no legal grounds under the First Amendment for it.

what you're all actually looking for is the Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

The point here being that the constitution lists things the government is specifically allowed to do, and other things they're specifically banned from doing. So if a law is passed it has to be shown to adhere to these restrictions. so if they pass a law to protect independence of cinemas from studios, they absolutely cannot use the First Amendment to justify that law, since it merely states what they cannot do, but they can couch it in terms of the commerce clause (a positive right, not a negative restriction), which is what lead to the anti-trust laws.

[Rolan7]

Contract law that enables them to force the position, especially ones that fall under federal statutes due to commerce regulation, certainly does make it a problem.  The existence of such laws, are what make it POSSIBLE for disney to own them in such a capacity.


Such laws then, defacto, abridge the right of freedom of speech, which then is a violation of the 1st amendment.

"Hello good fellow, I'd like to contract you for the construction of our new church!"
"You'll have to trust me, contract law doesn't support the establishment of religion"

I jest, but...  no, enforcing contract law in civil court doesn't mean the government is violating rights that are freely traded away.

I strongly agree that media megacorps are particularly in need of anti-trust regulation though, due to their effect on public discourse.  A press free from monopoly is just as important as press free from the government.  It's just the the former isn't technically a free speech first amendment issue, only the latter.

(Sorry for quickedits, am sleepy)