Let’s try this another way. You grow apples. You label your apples “Organic”. There are FDA guidelines that you are required to meet if you label your produce “Organic”.
This does not mean that you are required to grow organic apples. It does not mean that people are required to buy organic apples. It is just an issue of labeling.
I don’t see how having to meet guidelines to label something “News” regulates speech in any way.
Yeah, I don’t agree with regulating who can use the word “organic” either. But it’s less egregious than regulating the term “news”.
Specifically, I don’t care so much if an unaccountable team of bureaucrats decides what the requirements for some health food fad should be. But once they start trying to regulate reality and truth? That’s too damn far.
Wait, your OP is about regulating who can say the word “news”, right? Is that not a textbook case of regulating speech? Furthermore, you say that the license is to ensure the news is “factual”, but who determines that? Now the government is the final arbiter of truth? And if you don’t speak government-approved “truth”, you … what, exactly? What is the punishment for calling your own speech “truth” when the government disagrees? Fines? Jail for repeated offenses? Shutting down your entire operation?
That sort of situation is exactly what the first amendment was designed to prevent.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Do you think that there’s no controversy over what constitutes organic farming? Of course this is controversial. Here, for instance, is an article about whether produce grown using hydoponically (i.e., without soil) can be considered organic.
Similarly, who is going to decide whether this or that article or television news report is “factual”? Your idea opens an enormous can of worms.
Is all one needs to do is read some of the controversy and disputes over the “fact-checkers” to realize that this would end badly.
I think a better analogy would be the government regulating what you can call an “apple”. “News” is a common everyday word that is beyond regulating, IMHO. Suppose you are expecting a child and announce it to your friends and family on Facebook? Should that be run past a committee for approval before you post it? It is news, after all.
Well, actually, if you called something Apple News, you would hear from the Apple computer company. Similarly, Microsoft obtained trademark protection for the common word Windows. So the commonality of term has no direct bearing on whether it can regulated.
If you have a Facebook page and announce your child in a post labeled “Good News!” or something, that is not the same thing as having a web site, blog, TV or Radio station entitled XXX News.
A variation on this idea would be to allow anyone to use the term “News” to describe their outlet, but issue a licensed label to display on the site. Similar to the SSL certification labels that indicate a level of site security.
The level of “fact-checking” discussed here is way beyond what I’m suggesting.
I’m not talking about determining the truth of something Donald Trump said.
I’m just talking about did Donald Trump actually say it.
The goal you seem to be aiming at is to make sure that the weak minded among the voters aren’t led astray by certain information.
Instead of putting the effort all on the information side, why not work the voter side by re-thinking universal suffrage?
Can you elaborate of this idea of “re-thinking universal suffrage”?
As in perhaps there should be more qualifications for becoming a voter.
Other than somehow managing to stay alive until your 18th birthday.
What would some of these “qualifications” be, for example?
Something simple; a literacy test perhaps, or ask the potential voter to interpret a document. What could possibly go wrong?
Could be many things.
Education maybe, high school or GED minimum?
Property ownership or tax payer requirements?
Not being on direct government assistance?
I’m not wed to any particular filter, just tossing some out for starters.
Maybe verify that the males have registered for Selective Service?
Sounds like you are aware that something like this has been tried before. It didn’t turn out well.
That was fifty years ago; practically ancient history. Surely now that we’re in the 21st century, we’re beyond such racist attempts at manipulating the electorate? “*n April 2013, a top aide to the [North Carolina] Republican House speaker asked for ‘a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver’s license number.’”
It seems that by either method we would be trusting the government to use its power to apply filters to information, or to people.
It seems like 2 sides of the same coin, and neither one are very desirable.
I still don’t understand why you view the idea of labeling as “applying filters to information”.
When you look up a plumber in the yellow pages, and some of them say something like “Licensed Plumber”, is that filtering the plumbers? You can still let your next door neighbor take a shot at it, if you want.