From: Kevin Bluck (kevin.bluck@mail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 26 2002 - 10:59:26 MDT
>>I'd say, the only explanation is the threat of losing their license,
>>which is a form of censorship. The FCC employees involved in this attack
>>on free speech should be fired, all of them. The shock jocks would soon
>>return to the airwaves, where they belong. And the religious ones can
>>always listen to their Sunday school broadcasts.
>Those are my sentiments exactly. Despite the assertion of others on this
>thread, I don't really see how this *isn't* a free speech issue; while I,
>or others on this list, may not like such programming, it should still be
>allowed to exist. And, as Rafal points out, it seems that the station had
>no choice to fire the shock jocks, lest their license be removed.
Well... as usual in the real world, the question is not quite so black and
white.
If you wish to adopt a thoroughly libertarian position on this issue, you
must also be willing to accept the natural consequences. If anybody can say
anything they want at any time on the airwaves, and the FCC has no business
regulating that, then the FCC *also* has no business allocating spectrum.
They have no business eliminating signal interference. They have no
business setting technical broadcast standards.
If somebody doesn't like a television program, why shouldn't they be
allowed to jam it off the air with their competing broadcast? Why shouldn't
CBS be able to try frying "Friends" at a crucial moment? Maybe they have
something important to say at that very moment. Or, for that matter, Jerry
Falwell or similar religious fanatics acquiring their own high-power
transmitters in key markets and "stepping on" any episode with sentiments
they didn't like. Don't they have a right to speak out? Why should NBC get
special privileges to use the TV channels they use and nobody else? Let's
take completely unfettered access to the airwaves to its logical conclusion
--- people would have a right to do things like this under a completely
libertarian scenario.
Not all spectrum is created equal. Some portions are better than others for
various purposes. Who decides who gets the prime bits? Are companies just
supposed to "fight it out" on the air? Or, do we really believe they would
come together peacefully and work it all out for the public benefit? This
is a particularly important question of late, as "wireless" technologies
have exploded into the marketplace.
The raison d'etre of the FCC is the idea that the airwaves constitute a
public resource. They belong "to the people". In the US, the federal
government holds them in trust for all Americans, and through the FCC
administers their use in a manner that maximizes the public benefit --- in
theory, of course. I personally think the FCC is too controlled by media
interests and has been "giving away the farm" far too much lately.
Unfortunately, an all too common syndrome among agencies that administer
public property.
But, think about it. Lots of companies are making very good money, as a
direct consequence of being allowed to monopolize a national resource.
These companies don't own the airwaves --- the people of the United States
do. These companies have been granted a monopoly license on certain
portions of the airwaves which enables them to turn a profit, said licenses
having been obtained at practically no cost, and in return they have agreed
to certain obligations. These companies further benefit from the FCC's
vigilance in making sure other interests do not interfere with their
licensed monopolies on their allocated spectrum.
Part and parcel of this trust relationship is ensuring the airwaves are not
used for purposes contrary to the public interest. One aspect of this is
the general agreement that generally offensive or obscene broadcasts should
not be tolerated. Now, of course, where this become difficult is in
determining where to draw the line on this matter. Personally, I think that
soliciting listeners to commit trespass while engaging in public lewdness
qualifies, as in the Opie & Anthony case. At the same time, let's get this
straight --- O&A were not engaged in some noble act of political commentary
or informing the public. They were trying to make a big splash to titillate
existing and attract new listeners, solely for the purpose of lining their
own pockets. Entertainment, even bawdy entertainment, is all well and good
--- but they were utilizing a public resource to broadcast it, one which
their corporate masters had agreed to treat with a certain amount of
restraint. Therein lies the rub.
Personally, I think the FCC is far too lax in making companies live up to
their public-interest promises. It seems logical to declare that companies
should not be "required" to broadcast "opposing viewpoints" not in line
with their own institutional views, but keep in mind, those companies have
been given full control of the means to influence people by the millions.
What is more, that means is actually public property which nobody else is
allowed to use, enforced by government agents. If we were talking about
soapboxes in a park, an equivalent scenario would be that nobody else is
allowed to set up their own soapbox within hearing distance of the
speechmaker's voice, under penalty of jail. What is more, our anointed
speechmaker is permitted --- nay, assisted --- to monopolize that zone more
or less in perpetuity. I don't find it unreasonable that as a condition of
such privilege, some "equal access" should be insisted upon from the media
companies that benefit from their license.
It is one thing to guarantee "free speech". It is quite another to require
the people of America to supply megaphones to anybody who demands one,
particularly when the motive is not so much "freedom of speech" but rather
to make a buck.
--- Kevin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:25 MST