Not sure what it means for SF, but apparently King is happy about it:

www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/books/penguin-random-house-simon-schuster.html

The government had a high-profile witness on its side with the
author Stephen King, who testified that the merger would be
especially harmful to writers who are just starting out, and took
a contrary position to his own publisher, Scribner, which is part
of Simon & Schuster. On Monday night, Mr. King said in an email
interview that he was "delighted with the outcome."

"Further consolidation would have caused slow but steady damage
to writers, readers, independent booksellers, and small publishing
companies," he said. "Publishing should be more focused on cultural
growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance
sheets."

Executives from other major publishing houses, among them the
heads of Hachette and HarperCollins, also testified against the
deal.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:jscm1gFeuilU1@mid.individual.net:

> "Publishing should be more
> focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less
> on corporate balance sheets."
>
Given that we're talking about publicly traded companies, that's a
very naive view.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:42:14 AM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> Not sure what it means for SF, but apparently King is happy about it:
>
> www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/books/penguin-random-house-simon-schuster.html
>
> The government had a high-profile witness on its side with the
> author Stephen King, who testified that the merger would be
> especially harmful to writers who are just starting out, and took
> a contrary position to his own publisher, Scribner, which is part
> of Simon & Schuster. On Monday night, Mr. King said in an email
> interview that he was "delighted with the outcome."
>
> "Further consolidation would have caused slow but steady damage
> to writers, readers, independent booksellers, and small publishing
> companies," he said. "Publishing should be more focused on cultural
> growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance
> sheets."
>
> Executives from other major publishing houses, among them the
> heads of Hachette and HarperCollins, also testified against the
> deal.
When I click on that link I encounter a subscription wall. Could
someone give a brief summary?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

In article <44eba36b-737a-4dce-ac63-82797bdb0109n@googlegroups.com>,
peterwezeman@hotmail.com <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:42:14 AM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
>> Not sure what it means for SF, but apparently King is happy about it:
>>
>> www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/books/penguin-random-house-simon-schuster.html
>>
>> The government had a high-profile witness on its side with the
>> author Stephen King, who testified that the merger would be
>> especially harmful to writers who are just starting out, and took
>> a contrary position to his own publisher, Scribner, which is part
>> of Simon & Schuster. On Monday night, Mr. King said in an email
>> interview that he was "delighted with the outcome."
>>
>> "Further consolidation would have caused slow but steady damage
>> to writers, readers, independent booksellers, and small publishing
>> companies," he said. "Publishing should be more focused on cultural
>> growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance
>> sheets."
>>
>> Executives from other major publishing houses, among them the
>> heads of Hachette and HarperCollins, also testified against the
>> deal.
>
>When I click on that link I encounter a subscription wall. Could
>someone give a brief summary?
>

Try it from a private/incognito tab. Anyway, about what you would
expect from the headline:

Judge Blocks a Merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 12:37:30 PM UTC-4, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <44eba36b-737a-4dce...@googlegroups.com>,
> peterw...@hotmail.com <peterw...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 8:42:14 AM UTC-5, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> >> Not sure what it means for SF, but apparently King is happy about it:
> >>
> >> www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/books/penguin-random-house-simon-schuster.html
> >>
> >> The government had a high-profile witness on its side with the
> >> author Stephen King, who testified that the merger would be
> >> especially harmful to writers who are just starting out, and took
> >> a contrary position to his own publisher, Scribner, which is part
> >> of Simon & Schuster. On Monday night, Mr. King said in an email
> >> interview that he was "delighted with the outcome."
> >>
> >> "Further consolidation would have caused slow but steady damage
> >> to writers, readers, independent booksellers, and small publishing
> >> companies," he said. "Publishing should be more focused on cultural
> >> growth and literary achievement and less on corporate balance
> >> sheets."
> >>
> >> Executives from other major publishing houses, among them the
> >> heads of Hachette and HarperCollins, also testified against the
> >> deal.
> >
> >When I click on that link I encounter a subscription wall. Could
> >someone give a brief summary?
> >
> Try it from a private/incognito tab. Anyway, about what you would
> expect from the headline:
>

> Judge Blocks a Merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster
> --

Judge PAN!!!!!!??????

I smell a conflict of interest. :)

--
Kevin R

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
> news:jscm1g...@mid.individual.net:

> > "Publishing should be more
> > focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less
> > on corporate balance sheets."

> Given that we're talking about publicly traded companies, that's a
> very naive view.

He only said what publishing _should_ be focused on. Not what it is
focused on, what it is likely to be focused on, or what it is ever going
to be focused on at any time in the next million years or so.

Hence, I do not believe that "naive" could be applicable.

None the less, I may be taking him too literally here. Usually, when someone
makes a statement like this, it isn't _only_ a statement of moral preferences;
it usually also means something like...

"Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural growth and literary
achievement if only the government just pushed publishers a little harder."

And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive. Because it might
take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that hard - and, of course, the direction
he would push them in wouldn't really be the one desired.

And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all those Republicans
in Congress.

John Savard

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

[snip]

> "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural growth and literary
> achievement if only the government just pushed publishers a little harder."
>
> And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive. Because it might
> take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that hard - and, of course, the direction
> he would push them in wouldn't really be the one desired.
>
> And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all those Republicans
> in Congress.

I fail to see how the First Amendment doesn't shield publishers from
the antitrust (so-called) "laws."

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

I'd say passing a law determining who gets to own and operate a particular press
is prima facie unconstitutional.

--
Kevin R

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:acb67f79-c173-47e2-8295-f6c0a7987f4dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>> news:jscm1g...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> > "Publishing should be more
>> > focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less
>> > on corporate balance sheets."
>
>> Given that we're talking about publicly traded companies,
>> that's a very naive view.
>
> He only said what publishing _should_ be focused on.

And his view is very, very naive.

> Not what it
> is focused on, what it is likely to be focused on, or what it is
> ever going to be focused on at any time in the next million
> years or so.
>
> Hence, I do not believe that "naive" could be applicable.

That is because you, too, have zero comprehension of business. The
mechanisms of a publishing house - gather manuscripts, putting them
into publishable condition, putting ink on paper, and getting them
out to the public, *cannot* be done beyond a personal scale without
a succesfully run *business*. And King, of all people, *knows*
that. So perhaps it's no native so much as hypocritical. Without
the *business* of publishing, he's a nobody pumping gas or mopping
flors. And certainly not worth half a billion dollars.

I know this all conflicts with your insane communist fantasies, but
reality doesn't give a shit if you believe in it. It believes in
you.
>
> None the less, I may be taking him too literally here. Usually,
> when someone makes a statement like this, it isn't _only_ a
> statement of moral preferences; it usually also means something
> like...
>
> "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural
> growth and literary achievement if only the government just
> pushed publishers a little harder."
>
> And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive. Because
> it might take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that hard - and,
> of course, the direction he would push them in wouldn't really
> be the one desired.

Or he figures he's got his, and fuck the lesser beings.
>
> And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all
> those Republicans in Congress.
>
Democrats sign multi-million dollar books deals, too.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:c74d923e-7008-4436-a5c2-c71bc7d3e5e9n@googlegroups.com:

> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural
>> growth and literary achievement if only the government just
>> pushed publishers a little harder."
>>
>> And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive.
>> Because it might take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that
>> hard - and, of course, the direction he would push them in
>> wouldn't really be the one desired.
>>
>> And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all
>> those Republicans in Congress.
>
> I fail to see how the First Amendment doesn't shield publishers
> from the antitrust (so-called) "laws."

"The Constitutin isn't a suicide pact."
>
> "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech,
> or of the press;"
>
> I'd say passing a law determining who gets to own and operate a
> particular press is prima facie unconstitutional.
>
And you'd be completely full of shit. This doesn't surprise me at
all.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 06:37:25 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>news:acb67f79-c173-47e2-8295-f6c0a7987f4dn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>>> news:jscm1g...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> > "Publishing should be more
>>> > focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and less
>>> > on corporate balance sheets."
>>
>>> Given that we're talking about publicly traded companies,
>>> that's a very naive view.
>>
>> He only said what publishing _should_ be focused on.
>
>And his view is very, very naive.
>
>> Not what it
>> is focused on, what it is likely to be focused on, or what it is
>> ever going to be focused on at any time in the next million
>> years or so.
>>
>> Hence, I do not believe that "naive" could be applicable.
>
>That is because you, too, have zero comprehension of business. The
>mechanisms of a publishing house - gather manuscripts, putting them
>into publishable condition, putting ink on paper, and getting them
>out to the public, *cannot* be done beyond a personal scale without
>a succesfully run *business*. And King, of all people, *knows*
>that. So perhaps it's no native so much as hypocritical. Without
>the *business* of publishing, he's a nobody pumping gas or mopping
>flors. And certainly not worth half a billion dollars.
>
>I know this all conflicts with your insane communist fantasies, but
>reality doesn't give a shit if you believe in it. It believes in
>you.
>>
>> None the less, I may be taking him too literally here. Usually,
>> when someone makes a statement like this, it isn't _only_ a
>> statement of moral preferences; it usually also means something
>> like...
>>
>> "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural
>> growth and literary achievement if only the government just
>> pushed publishers a little harder."
>>
>> And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive. Because
>> it might take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that hard - and,
>> of course, the direction he would push them in wouldn't really
>> be the one desired.
>
>Or he figures he's got his, and fuck the lesser beings.
>>
>> And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all
>> those Republicans in Congress.
>>
>Democrats sign multi-million dollar books deals, too.

Them-tooism: the rhetoric of Trumpland.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 21:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural growth and literary
>> achievement if only the government just pushed publishers a little harder."
>>
>> And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive. Because it might
>> take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that hard - and, of course, the direction
>> he would push them in wouldn't really be the one desired.
>>
>> And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all those Republicans
>> in Congress.
>
>I fail to see how the First Amendment doesn't shield publishers from
>the antitrust (so-called) "laws."
>
>"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
>
>I'd say passing a law determining who gets to own and operate a particular press
>is prima facie unconstitutional.

The freedom is the freedom to publish whatever they want to, without
prior restraint.

It has nothing with business mergers.

Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the press,
because one may publish what another will not.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
[snip-snip]
> I fail to see how the First Amendment doesn't shield publishers from
> the antitrust (so-called) "laws."
>
> "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
>
> I'd say passing a law determining who gets to own and operate a particular press
> is prima facie unconstitutional.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/encyclopedia/case/9/antitrust-laws-and-the-first-amendment
has an overview of Supreme Court antitrust decisions in the context of
the First Amendment.

First Amendment issues aside, this was the District Court level. To quote
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/01/1133032238/judge-blocks-penguin-random-house-simon-schuster-merger :

"In its statement Monday, the publisher said it would seek an
expedited appeal."

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:54:56 AM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 11:54:02 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural growth and literary
> > achievement if only the government just pushed publishers a little harder."
> >
> > And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive. Because it might
> > take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that hard - and, of course, the direction
> > he would push them in wouldn't really be the one desired.
> >
> > And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all those Republicans
> > in Congress.
> I fail to see how the First Amendment doesn't shield publishers from
> the antitrust (so-called) "laws."
>
> "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"
>
> I'd say passing a law determining who gets to own and operate a particular press
> is prima facie unconstitutional.

If you left out the word 'particular' you'd have a case. Limiting who can run a press
would indeed be unconstitutional. But S&S being constrained from buying up the
competition in no way constrains S&S's speech.

pt

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:t5p7mh9iohfhlbm10hj24j4vmi5f1boia2@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 03 Nov 2022 06:37:25 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>news:acb67f79-c173-47e2-8295-f6c0a7987f4dn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 10:00:24 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
>>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
>>>> news:jscm1g...@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> > "Publishing should be more
>>>> > focused on cultural growth and literary achievement and
>>>> > less on corporate balance sheets."
>>>
>>>> Given that we're talking about publicly traded companies,
>>>> that's a very naive view.
>>>
>>> He only said what publishing _should_ be focused on.
>>
>>And his view is very, very naive.
>>
>>> Not what it
>>> is focused on, what it is likely to be focused on, or what it
>>> is ever going to be focused on at any time in the next million
>>> years or so.
>>>
>>> Hence, I do not believe that "naive" could be applicable.
>>
>>That is because you, too, have zero comprehension of business.
>>The mechanisms of a publishing house - gather manuscripts,
>>putting them into publishable condition, putting ink on paper,
>>and getting them out to the public, *cannot* be done beyond a
>>personal scale without a succesfully run *business*. And King,
>>of all people, *knows* that. So perhaps it's no native so much
>>as hypocritical. Without the *business* of publishing, he's a
>>nobody pumping gas or mopping flors. And certainly not worth
>>half a billion dollars.
>>
>>I know this all conflicts with your insane communist fantasies,
>>but reality doesn't give a shit if you believe in it. It
>>believes in you.
>>>
>>> None the less, I may be taking him too literally here.
>>> Usually, when someone makes a statement like this, it isn't
>>> _only_ a statement of moral preferences; it usually also means
>>> something like...
>>>
>>> "Publishing _could_ be, and _will_ be, focused on cultural
>>> growth and literary achievement if only the government just
>>> pushed publishers a little harder."
>>>
>>> And it is meaningful to consider such a statement naive.
>>> Because it might take Joseph Stalin to push publishers that
>>> hard - and, of course, the direction he would push them in
>>> wouldn't really be the one desired.
>>
>>Or he figures he's got his, and fuck the lesser beings.
>>>
>>> And it's also naive to think this could happen, what with all
>>> those Republicans in Congress.
>>>
>>Democrats sign multi-million dollar books deals, too.
>
> Them-tooism: the rhetoric of Trumpland.

Hypocricy: the rhetoric of the left.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 4/11/22 12:39, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
snip
>>
>> Them-tooism: the rhetoric of Trumpland.
>
> Hypocricy: the rhetoric of the left.
>

Shut up and leave a big tip: the rhetoric of US Democracy.
Roughly quoting George Carlin.
Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are Democrats or
Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
You guys should sit at separate tables.

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the press,
> because one may publish what another will not.

While the notion that applying the antitrust laws to publishers is in
violation of the First Amendment never occurred to me, the logic of
your statement reminds me of an issue where I did harbor a similar
sentiment.

In the United States, cable television operators are required to have
"public access channels", and at least in some states this resulted
in shows with explicit sexual content being available on them.

I see _this_ as being violative of the First Amendment. While some
have said that "Freedom of the press is not a property right of
people who own printing presses", it's hard for me to even imagine
a way in which one could define freedom of the press as a right -
based on the theory, which I accept, that the only *absolute* rights
can be negative rights - in any other way.

I think that it's highly desirable to have universal medicare. But that's
*not the same* as saying that medical care is a _right_ in the same
absolute sense as the right of free speech or not to be arbitrarily
detained and so on. Why not? Well, not all countries are rich. It's
entirely possible for a country to be so limited in resources that
there isn't even enough to ensure everyone has enough to eat,
never mind state-of-the-art medical care!

So medicare isn't a right, it's something we very much should
have - *if* we can afford it.

Given that: the owner of a cable TV system is the "speaker" of
what it transmits. Public subsidies for internet access are a
good thing, especially given the behavior of some cable
companies in the U.S., but using tax dollars or the equivalent
to provide a soapbox for unusual points of view is already
going far beyond the vision of the Founding Fathers. Compelling
a private entity to do so directly - as part of the fee for having
a lucrative cable franchise, though, it must be admitted - is
even stranger.

John Savard

On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:

> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are Democrats or
> Republicans. You still eat the same crap!

Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
Democratic Presidential nomination?

John Savard

On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the press,
>> because one may publish what another will not.
>
>While the notion that applying the antitrust laws to publishers is in
>violation of the First Amendment never occurred to me, the logic of
>your statement reminds me of an issue where I did harbor a similar
>sentiment.
>
>In the United States, cable television operators are required to have
>"public access channels", and at least in some states this resulted
>in shows with explicit sexual content being available on them.

As I understand, the whole /point/ of "public access" is that the
station is not responsible for the content.

I'm not even sure that they are legally permitted to take any action
based on the content.

Well, report on-air criminal activity to the police, perhaps.
Depending on the activity.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:tk20nl$1jblr$1@dont-email.me:

> On 4/11/22 12:39, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> snip
>>>
>>> Them-tooism: the rhetoric of Trumpland.
>>
>> Hypocricy: the rhetoric of the left.
>>
>
> Shut up and leave a big tip: the rhetoric of US Democracy.
> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are
> Democrats or Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
> You guys should sit at separate tables.
>
Indeed, they all want the same things, and use the same methods to
get it: hold you upside down and shake you until the loose change
they missed last time fall out of your poackets.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:79cdc252-5058-495b-a7cd-90b0f38a8b21n@googlegroups.com:

> On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>
>> Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the
>> press, because one may publish what another will not.
>
> While the notion that applying the antitrust laws to publishers
> is in violation of the First Amendment never occurred to me, the
> logic of your statement reminds me of an issue where I did
> harbor a similar sentiment.
>
> In the United States, cable television operators are required to
> have "public access channels", and at least in some states this
> resulted in shows with explicit sexual content being available
> on them.
>
> I see _this_ as being violative of the First Amendment.

Cable companies, back then, had a legally sanction monopoly. That
always comes with a price. They agreed to the price. They were free
to build out their own cable network without the monopoly, of course,
but found it impractical to do so without the backing of the
monopoly.

Life is considerably more complicated than your tiny brain can
comprehend.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:37camh5pu8qdsprn0calh4eiok6ogh6ka0@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the
>>> press, because one may publish what another will not.
>>
>>While the notion that applying the antitrust laws to publishers
>>is in violation of the First Amendment never occurred to me, the
>>logic of your statement reminds me of an issue where I did
>>harbor a similar sentiment.
>>
>>In the United States, cable television operators are required to
>>have "public access channels", and at least in some states this
>>resulted in shows with explicit sexual content being available
>>on them.
>
> As I understand, the whole /point/ of "public access" is that
> the station is not responsible for the content.

No, that's a condition that makes it more practical. The point of
public access is to give people access who otherwise would not have
it, to say things that the cable company never would.
>
> I'm not even sure that they are legally permitted to take any
> action based on the content.
>
> Well, report on-air criminal activity to the police, perhaps.
> Depending on the activity.

You are, as usual, full of it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 22:20:26 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:37camh5pu8qdsprn0calh4eiok6ogh6ka0@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the
>>>> press, because one may publish what another will not.
>>>
>>>While the notion that applying the antitrust laws to publishers
>>>is in violation of the First Amendment never occurred to me, the
>>>logic of your statement reminds me of an issue where I did
>>>harbor a similar sentiment.
>>>
>>>In the United States, cable television operators are required to
>>>have "public access channels", and at least in some states this
>>>resulted in shows with explicit sexual content being available
>>>on them.
>>
>> As I understand, the whole /point/ of "public access" is that
>> the station is not responsible for the content.
>
>No, that's a condition that makes it more practical. The point of
>public access is to give people access who otherwise would not have
>it, to say things that the cable company never would.
>>
>> I'm not even sure that they are legally permitted to take any
>> action based on the content.
>>
>> Well, report on-air criminal activity to the police, perhaps.
>> Depending on the activity.
>
>You are, as usual, full of it.

Well, maybe -- but I was thinking of the "people who otherwise would
not have [access]" shooting someone in the head on-line.

I suspect the station /would/ be expected to report that to the
police, just as they would any other murder they witnessed.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:h31dmhhle0shlnr80jma93usf57i1m5291@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 04 Nov 2022 22:20:26 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:37camh5pu8qdsprn0calh4eiok6ogh6ka0@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2022 00:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>>> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-6, Paul S
>>>>Person wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, having multiple publishers /promotes/ freedom of the
>>>>> press, because one may publish what another will not.
>>>>
>>>>While the notion that applying the antitrust laws to
>>>>publishers is in violation of the First Amendment never
>>>>occurred to me, the logic of your statement reminds me of an
>>>>issue where I did harbor a similar sentiment.
>>>>
>>>>In the United States, cable television operators are required
>>>>to have "public access channels", and at least in some states
>>>>this resulted in shows with explicit sexual content being
>>>>available on them.
>>>
>>> As I understand, the whole /point/ of "public access" is that
>>> the station is not responsible for the content.
>>
>>No, that's a condition that makes it more practical. The point
>>of public access is to give people access who otherwise would
>>not have it, to say things that the cable company never would.
>>>
>>> I'm not even sure that they are legally permitted to take any
>>> action based on the content.
>>>
>>> Well, report on-air criminal activity to the police, perhaps.
>>> Depending on the activity.
>>
>>You are, as usual, full of it.
>
> Well, maybe -- but I was thinking of the "people who otherwise
> would not have [access]" shooting someone in the head on-line.
>
> I suspect the station /would/ be expected to report that to the
> police, just as they would any other murder they witnessed.

Where you're full of shit - as usual - is the belief that they
can't act on anything else.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

In article <79cdc252-5058-495b-a7cd-90b0f38a8b21n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>Given that: the owner of a cable TV system is the "speaker" of
>what it transmits. Public subsidies for internet access are a
>good thing, especially given the behavior of some cable
>companies in the U.S., but using tax dollars or the equivalent
>to provide a soapbox for unusual points of view is already
>going far beyond the vision of the Founding Fathers. Compelling
>a private entity to do so directly - as part of the fee for having
>a lucrative cable franchise, though, it must be admitted - is
>even stranger.

(Hal Heydt)
Certainly for over-the-air broadcast, and most likely cable by
extension, requiring some form of public access or other
constraints on what the broadcaster chooses to transmit is
recognizing that the broadcast specturm is a limited resource. A
broadcasting license, therefore, constrains the permission to use
that limited resource to the public good.

Since cable companies string their coax or optical fiber on
poles (or underground) using facilities they don't own and that
have finite capacity, the same arguments can be applied.

The alternative would be--as some places do--have the cable
capacity publicly owned and lease bandwidth on it.

In article <098c485f-c9b3-480c-a1bb-ba47f36a3b52n@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 9:25:46 PM UTC-6, Titus G wrote:
>
>> Roughly quoting George Carlin.
>> Wall Street runs the soup kitchen.
>> The voter is the diner who chooses whether the waiters are Democrats or
>> Republicans. You still eat the same crap!
>
>Let me guess: you would like to see Bernie Sanders get the
>Democratic Presidential nomination?

(Hal Heydt)
It seems exceeding odd to me that Saunders has even been allowed
to run as a Democrat. He was elected as an independent. (Note
that this opinion is completely independent of any of his actual
political views or plans.)