How limited is the given district court of appeals case law precedent in regards to must-carry and Equal time rules for non-licensed spectrum Information Service providers? Are they now common carrier liability, too?
> The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States. [5][6]
Because the free flow of information is essential to democracy, it is in the Public Interest to support a market of new and established flourishing information service providers, not a market of exploited must-carry'ers subject to district-level criteria for ejection or free water for life. Shouldn't all publications, all information services be subject to any and all such Equal Time and Must-Carry interpretations?
Your newspaper may not regulate viewpoints: in its editorial section or otherwise. Must carry. Equal time.
The wall of one's business, perhaps.
You must keep that up there on your business's wall.
**
In this instance, is there a contract for future performance? How does Statute of Frauds apply to contracts worth over $500?
Equal time rules and American media history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule
Who pays for all of this?
> "Give me my free water!"