>How in the hell is monopoly ownership of the press still considered a free press?
Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment, which protects individuals from government interference with speech. It has no bearing on the behaviors of private parties.
FWIW I'm not taking a pro-monopoly stance here. Just think it's important to educate the public that the First Amendment is a lot more limited than the average American believes that it is.
It has happened before. Once upon a time railroad barons started collecting companies together. From that we got antitrust rules. Media owners are the modern railroad barons in that control over one asset (last-mile internet) grants them leverage over a great many others. To follow Herbert's "golden path" principal: we may need for it to get truly horrible for a generation or more before people stand up to say never again.
> Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment
Not true. While the First Amendment does provide many protections for free press and there are no national press shield laws, many states in the US provide additional free press protections: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_laws_in_the_United_Stat...
Please stop trying to hijack discussion of free speech and free press (both of which are human rights / social institutions that extend beyond the scope of protections provided via the court due to the First Amendment) into being discussions of the First Amendment in the name of "education".
It's not unreasonable to reference federal protections for the 'free press' when the scope of the discussion is focused on the US in general.
>Please stop trying to hijack discussion of free speech and free press (both of which are human rights / social institutions that extend beyond the scope of protections provided via the court due to the First Amendment) into being discussions of the First Amendment in the name of "education".
At the end of the day, whatever you choose to identify as "human rights / social institutions that extend beyond the scope of protections provided via the court due to the First Amendment" don't really matter unless they're institutionalized and codified. Rights that have explicit protections written into law are the only rights that are backed by the State's right to use of coercive force.
Exponential curves have no "knee." There's no point in American history that you can point to as the inflection point of liberty. It just gets worse every year - except for the slices carved out by activists.
Because in the US, the 'free press' is an extension of the First Amendment, which protects individuals from government interference with speech. It has no bearing on the behaviors of private parties.
FWIW I'm not taking a pro-monopoly stance here. Just think it's important to educate the public that the First Amendment is a lot more limited than the average American believes that it is.