Why is sensationalization and obscurantism not illegal?

Because those things are subjective.

Who gets to decide what is sensational or what should be obscured?

As long as no one's rights are being trampled upon, these thing ought to be left for society to regulate on it's own. Laws regarding these matters would border on communism.

I think it's because it's all open to interpretation. That's how the banks make their money. They allow people to make inadvisable decisions, and they are right there to collect the fees or to foreclose. The stock market is based on fleecing the person not quite so knowledgable about their investments.

There are laws that punish demonstrable lying, but the really big corporations have hundreds of excellent lawyers to tell them just exactly how far they can go without risking a lawsuit.

So the whole game is how to push the limits and still remain technically legal.

Then, of course, there are folks who just plain lie, but they only gouge you for twenty or fifty dollars or so, and as a result they never get charged because going to court would cost more than it's worth.

They could be. All you have to do is change the rules of the FCC back to what the were in the 1960's. Back then we would have never tolerated anything like the republican propaganda machine on FOX and Lush Limbo. That complete fascist horsesh*t would not have been allowed on our airwaves.

Come to find out..... WE can actually choose what's on our airwaves. We don't really have to put up with republican scum.

Too much power required to enforce it. It is a bad idea to concentrate power to do something like that because it can be misused. Look at where it is done today and where it has been done in the past.

You'd outlaw 90 percent of human speech?

I think because most people want to be the one talking.

Because it draws a crowd = brings in money.

free speech is the key to unlocking your bs problem ..

they are a part of those certain "inalienable rights."