Is there some gain from posting so overt of a false dichotomy (especially to downplay knowing and malicious hypocrisy by a government actor)? You might as well have said the "Moops" invaded Spain in 711.
There are reasonable alternatives that aren't letting the government illegally post identities of innocent-until-proven-guilty arrested people on social media for political points ("for it is their adversary who is obliged to use" laws "responsibly, since he believes in" laws) and preventing the government from providing any information about arrested people. Wouldn't you believe it, (with exceptions such as national security, I presume) the government has documentation requirements whenever it detains or arrests people, and must disclose some of that documentation in relation to FOIA requests. When the government doesn't follow those requirements, the government is disappearing people.
Most of the federal agents arresting people perform fundamentally public-facing activities ostensibly in service of the public. Compared to the average person (or if you'd prefer, to the average non-government-employee), such federal agents should have very little expectation of privacy when they are on the job.
> So you see general entertainment TV shows as the same as literally conservative radio? If a conservative radio show gave equal time to Jasmine Crockett who would even listen? If Hannity gave equal time to Joe Biden, probably hours of equal time, who would even want that?
(As far as the FCC is allowed to consider within First Amendment boundaries,) What makes Stephen Colbert's show "general entertainment" under the assumption that Hannity's show is "conservative"? Put another way, what makes Hannity's show not "general entertainment" yet makes Colbert's show "general entertainment"?
(I'm not trying to distract from xracy's comment [1] about selective enforcement.)
> And in Malliotakis, the Court reached out to block a state trial court ruling before the state supreme court had even had a chance to rule on the matter—for what appears to be the first time … ever.
[...]
> But Malliotakis presents a bigger problem—the Supreme Court doesn’t even have jurisdiction to hear appeals from state courts until and unless the highest court in the state has ruled on the issue. As Justice Sotomayor pointed out in her dissent, “This procedural defect should be fatal. In every other case in which this Court has granted emergency relief from a state-court decision, the State’s highest court either denied it first or failed to act promptly on a request for it.”
> Well, it's two days later now, and it turns out Colbert just lied. He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time, and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett.
How did Colbert lie? And do you have a source for the supposed lie? The equal-time rule does not obligate proactive actions from the broadcaster such as invitations or "extend[ing]" an offer. The equal-time rule requires an equal opportunity for political opponents to use a broadcast station, and it is up to each political opponent to reach out and assert their intent to use the equal-time rule. Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, much less was denied such a request.
> Then he lied about it and the network corrected him.
No, CBS lied about what the equal-time rule requires.
> He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time
Don't pretend that the "law about equal time" is the same in 2026 as it was in the 95 previous years [1]:
> Late-night and daytime talk show interviews were long considered to be bona fide news segments until FCC chair Brendan Carr issued new guidance in 2026 signaling that these types of shows would no longer be automatically granted the bona fide news exemption.
[break to avoid mixing quotes from different parties]
> He didn't want to abide by the 95-year-old law about equal time
Could you explain how you reached the number 95? I don't get 95+-1 from 2026-1927 or 2026-1934 [1].
> and didn't extend an offer to Jasmine Crockett.
CBS didn't want to air the Talarico interview because CBS didn't want to be forced to provide equal time in case Jasmine Crockett would have used the equal-time rule to get her own interview. Colbert did not oppose and has not opposed having Crockett on in relation to the equal-time rule.
I get the feeling that you're pretending to be angry on Jasmine Crockett's behalf. What's more, it seems like you want to be angry at Colbert and are projecting your feelings onto Jasmine Crockett. But why does Jasmine Crockett seem to have no issue with Colbert's actions [2]?
> Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, much less was denied such a request.
I should have written: Jasmine Crockett did not request to be on Stephen Colbert's show, so her non-existent request couldn't have been denied by CBS or Colbert. CBS does not violate the equal-time rule until CBS were to deny an interview request that relies on the equal-time rule.
Yes. If the government requires Apple to scan the user's files, then the government would be mandating a Fourth-Amendment-covered search even if Apple follows up by sending an alert instead of the account info.
There are reasonable alternatives that aren't letting the government illegally post identities of innocent-until-proven-guilty arrested people on social media for political points ("for it is their adversary who is obliged to use" laws "responsibly, since he believes in" laws) and preventing the government from providing any information about arrested people. Wouldn't you believe it, (with exceptions such as national security, I presume) the government has documentation requirements whenever it detains or arrests people, and must disclose some of that documentation in relation to FOIA requests. When the government doesn't follow those requirements, the government is disappearing people.