# So couldn't someone sue to stop Sinclair **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120 "2004-10-19T21:55:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rusalka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecd19e/32.png) [@Rusalka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rusalka)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/1 "2004-10-19T21:55:28Z")
…from airing that anti-Kerry program? People are able to get injunctions for all kinds of reasons, sometimes not even legitimate ones. I heard one of the people who appeared on the program filed a libel suit - why can’t he, or others file a suit to stop the airing of this program until after the election? Aren’t there laws against using the news media for political purposes? This isn’t an opinion: I’m just curious and surprised that it seems the Kerry campaign isn’t trying anything (beyond complaining to the FCC). ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/2 "2004-10-19T22:08:04Z")
[Media Matters for America Underwrites Sinclair Broadcast Group Shareholder Demand](http://mediamatters.org/items/200410190004) > [@](#): > > Media Matters for America (MMFA) announced today that it is underwriting the costs of a shareholder action, demanding that Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc., provide equal time to those “with views opposed to the allegations” in the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor, which Sinclair plans to air between October 21-24, in prime time, on all 62 of its stations reaching up to 25 percent of U.S. TV households. ---
**Author:** ![jsmith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/df705f/32.png) [@jsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsmith)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/3 "2004-10-19T22:09:36Z")
Because than Fahreneit 9/11 will face the same scrutiny. Michael Moore is working to get his documentary put on the air before the elections. I believe Fahreneit 9/11 is far more damaging than the Swift Boat Veteran’s documentary. Anyway, that is just my opinion. I find it funny that both sides have double standards. ---
**Author:** ![Blackacre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@Blackacre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackacre)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/4 "2004-10-19T22:10:04Z")
That’s like asking “can’t someone stop Michael Moore?” Freedom of speech cuts both ways mate. BA ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/5 "2004-10-19T22:14:51Z")
> [@Blackacre](#): > > That’s like asking “can’t someone stop Michael Moore?” Freedom of speech cuts both ways mate. True, but broadcast stations have specific obligations when it comes to political speech, due to their being licensed by the FCC. A movie studio or newspaper or cable channel can say whatever they want, short of libel or slander, but the FCC considers the radio spectrum to be public property, and requires certain amounts of restraint and fairness when it comes to political content. Sinclair is arguing that the film is news, and thus not subject to equal time regulations. A complaint will be brought against them when and if they air it, but I don’t think pre-emptive complaints can be done under FCC regulations. ---
**Author:** ![Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/46a35a/32.png) [@Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Live_Better_Electrically)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/6 "2004-10-19T22:57:06Z")
> [@Blackacre](#): > > That’s like asking “can’t someone stop Michael Moore?” Freedom of speech cuts both ways mate. It’s not the same. No one has tried to shut down right-wing theatrical films such as _Michael Moore Hates America_. The Sinclair controversy is purely an issue of TV’s fairness doctrine and the laws pertaining to in-kind political donations. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/7 "2004-10-19T23:16:26Z")
> [@Rusalka](#): > > Aren’t there laws against using the news media for political purposes? There are also laws against the government telling the news media what they can and can’t broadcast or print before it happens. It’s called “prior restraint” aka censorship. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/8 "2004-10-19T23:28:20Z")
The FEC might find that the broadcast violated election laws, but they certainly don’t have the authority to stop the broadcast before it airs. The FCC might find that the broadcast violated their rules and take action against the broadcaster, fining them or threatening their license, but they don’t have the authority to stop the broadcast before it airs. And the so-called “fairness doctrine” has been repealed since the 1980s. A person who might be libeled by the broadcast can sue to recover damages, but they don’t have the right to ask a judge to stop the broadcast before it airs. The shareholders are within their rights to complain and attempt to fire the executive who made the decision, since they are the owners of the station, but that is a purely internal business decision. What you people are advocating is called censorship. For-real censorship, censorship designed to use the power of government to stop people from speaking their minds, because you all disagree with what they say. Did I mention that you all are advocating censorship? Don’t you feel even the slightest bit ashamed by that? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/9 "2004-10-19T23:36:12Z")
Don’t put words in my mouth. I advocated no such thing. I demand a retraction. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/10 "2004-10-20T00:10:48Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What you people are advocating is called censorship. For-real censorship, censorship designed to use the power of government to stop people from speaking their minds, because you all disagree with what they say. Did I mention that you all are advocating censorship? Don’t you feel even the slightest bit ashamed by that? It’s censorship whether it happens before or after the fact - or rather, it would be, if they were actually being prevented from speaking their minds. They aren’t, and I haven’t seen anyone say they should be, only that they should be prevented from _using the public airwaves to do it_. Sinclair has already started to [back down](http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6546336), presumably due to pressure from shareholders and advertisers: > [@](#): > > Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., under widening scrutiny over plans to air a documentary about Sen. John Kerry’s wartime activities 30 years ago, said on Tuesday it would not show the program in its entirety. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/11 "2004-10-20T00:11:30Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What you people are advocating is called censorship. For-real censorship, censorship designed to use the power of government to stop people from speaking their minds, because you all disagree with what they say. Did I mention that you all are advocating censorship? Don’t you feel even the slightest bit ashamed by that? The airwaves are public property not, private. When it comes to a venue which is owned by the taxpayer, the taxpayer has a right not to have that venue hijacked by a specific political interest. That’s why we have the laws that we have concerning political advertising. Sinclair does not own the airwaves. WE do. It’s not a question of stopping the speech, _per se_, it’s about the _venue_ for the speech. This is a political advertisement and nothing more. There are laws about political advertising. Sinclair is trying to pretend that it’s a “news” program but any political campaign could claim to be giving “news” if it wanted to. Besides all that, the show contains misleading and false information. It’s not only a political ad, it’s a libelous one. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/12 "2004-10-20T00:11:52Z")
The special sounds a despicable pile of lies, but that’s why we have freedom of speech. Further, most courts are very hostile toward prior restraint in freedom of speech cases. You can sue someone after it’s aired, but they are not going to stop people from airing (or publishing) something prior to when it’s made public. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/13 "2004-10-20T00:15:04Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > There are also laws against the government telling the news media what they can and can’t broadcast or print before it happens. It’s called “prior restraint” aka censorship. It’s actually an illegal in-kind contribution violating election laws. Calling it news is stretching the concept well past any recognizable bounds and even if it is news it is of the worst sort that harkens back to William Randolph Hearst. You can use all the euphemisms you like but only the terminally dumb would see this as anything but a media conglomerate’s effort to sway an election and that should deeply trouble everybody. If this were to be likened to Farenheit 9/11 it would need to appear in theaters and on sale as a DVD. I’d certainly have no issue with that. Free speech is a right but it is a limited right (e.g you can’t scream “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire). The government has also recognized as far back as the 1930’s that broadcast media are particularly powerful and instituted the “Equal Time” clause to make sure the media couldn’t unduly sway an election by favoring one candidate with coverage. Indeed, the reason for calling this “news” is that news is exempt from the Equal Time protections. There is no doubt Sinclair is trying to wiggle through a loop hole and I hope they get creamed for it. Not because I dislike Bush or love Kerry but because I think what they are doing is frightening. If they aired Farenheit 9/11 as news as well I’d be only partially mollified…I do not think either should be broadcast at this juncture. ---
**Author:** ![lawoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/35a633/32.png) [@lawoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawoot)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/14 "2004-10-20T00:18:03Z")
> [@](#): > > By 1985, the FCC issued its Fairness Report, asserting that the doctrine was no longer having its intended effect, might actually have a “chilling effect” and might be in violation of the First Amendment. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year. > > However, before the Commission’s action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law–a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush. > > \>snip\< > > Currently, however, there is no required balance of controversial issues as mandated by the fairness doctrine. The public relies instead on the judgment of broadcast journalists and its own reasoning ability to sort out one-sided or distorted coverage of an issue. [cite.](http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm) Also, at [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/15 "2004-10-20T01:02:21Z")
I believe that the OP has been answered in GQ quite sufficiently. Unfortunately, there’s just too much baggage. But I thanks those who gave factual answers. Off to GD. **samclem** GQ moderator ---
**Author:** ![Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/46a35a/32.png) [@Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Live_Better_Electrically)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/16 "2004-10-20T02:17:02Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What you people are advocating is called censorship. Television is already an undemocratic zone of restricted speech where censorship occurs all the time. In that kind of forum, where networks won’t accept paid advertising or programming they don’t like, or voluntarily offer reasonable balance, then it seems acceptable for citizens to lobby for the addition or omission of content. If the alternative is to bend over and take whatever the networks thrust at you, that’s a pretty one-way definition of “free speech.” ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/17 "2004-10-20T04:18:28Z")
Freedom of speech and FCC regulation of the airwaves have nothing to do with it. What the OP is looking for is called a “shareholder derivative suit,” whereby one or more shareholders of the corporation sue the board members for doing something so transcendentally stupid and/or self-interested that there is no reasonable business explanation for what they’ve done. The folks who run Sinclair have every right in the world to say whatever they want. They don’t have the right to wipe other their asses with their shareholders’ money. ---
**Author:** ![Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/46a35a/32.png) [@Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Live_Better_Electrically)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/18 "2004-10-20T05:03:31Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Freedom of speech and FCC regulation of the airwaves have nothing to do with it… The folks who run Sinclair have every right in the world to say whatever they want. Their right to say “whatever they want” is restricted. In any case, Sinclair is backing down under pressure from shareholders, advertisers and, probably far down the list, Democrats. They aren’t airing _Stolen Honor_ in its entirety, but rather another documentary, or sort of a meta-documentary, titled _A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media_ that is supposedly about documentaries and their attempts to influence voting in the 2004 election. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/19 "2004-10-20T05:23:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Besides all that, the show contains misleading and false information. It’s not only a political ad, it’s a libelous one. You’ve seen it already? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120/20 "2004-10-20T05:35:28Z")
> [@jsmith](#): > > Because than Fahreneit 9/11 will face the same scrutiny. Michael Moore is working to get his documentary put on the air before the elections. Moore had plans for a three-hour **pay-per-view** special involving F911 planned, but the plans were killed when the cable company abruptly cancelled the deal. Naturally, the rumors are that conservatives pressured the cable company into backing out; Moore is apparently looking into suing for breach of contract. > [@jsmith](#): > > I believe Fahreneit 9/11 is far more damaging than the Swift Boat Veteran’s documentary. Yes, because it’s backed up by facts. 😃 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-couldnt-someone-sue-to-stop-sinclair/270120.md?page=2)