What is the statutory reason that they are not allowed to do this? Sincere question.
The specific statutes allowing the FCC to govern broadcasters and fine them in this manner is the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
[0]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
It's like shouting fire in a theater when there is none - that would not be in the public interest. Neither is broadcasting lies to deceive the public.
[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
[1]: https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-...
People like the guy you link are ridiculous and just want to be the smartest guy in the room. In 2017, people using the phrase are obviously not referencing the case in question, and common sense would tell you that shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
Would you mind showing me one of those examples? I just did a bit of google searching, and was unable to find one. Even the original case (Schenck v. United States) had nothing to do with fires or theaters.
> shouting fire in a crowded theater would result in a situation in which you could be tried for violating countless laws if the end-result was damage to property or persons.
The "imminent lawless action" test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio requires more than just a damaging end-result. Intent, imminence, and likelihood must all be demonstrated in order for speech to be considered illegal. Maybe that test also applies to false fire alarms in theaters, but it certainly takes more than simply causing a bad end-result to happen.
Guessing from your comments, you seem to work in software. Do you profess any particular legal expertise?
As the other commenter notes, I can't find any example of 2102 being applied like this.
No law can override the first amendment. The only question is if the first amendment protects it. If it does, then that law is unconstitutional along with any other law that attempts to infringe on it.
To say that a law supersedes the constitution would make the constitution a worthless document.
Imagine I pay a news station to run a story about a hospital (for example) which I believe to have saved many lives and I expect will continue to do so. Arguably my advertisement is in the public interest, because it brings attention to a potential health benefit.
What then, hypothetically? Is "public interest" still a justification for the fine?
1) Clearly labeling that the content you're showing is sponsored.
or
2) Not accepting payment and running the story
Stations do this all the time. It's called 1) Advertising or 2) News.
That's pretty damn rich given that the FCC did this just a few days ago.
In general, the government is NOT allowed to prohibit any speech that "is not in the public interest" under the constitution. In general. The FCC and broadcasting is a special case justified by limited spectrum (although one that the Supreme Court has extensively limited further since 1943), but not because it's like shouting fire in a crowded theater.
The broadcast license is needed to have exclusive access to a publicly owned resource (the airwaves).