The FCC - A threat to our First Amendment rights?
Aboslutely!
Quote:
Several unpersuasive arguments have been presented as to why broadcasters should not get full free speech rights. First, it is argued that broadcasters use public property. But so do speakers in public parks, and so do newspapers, which are delivered through the public streets and printed on paper made from trees that grew on federal lands. Furthermore, there is no sound reason that the electromagnetic spectrum should have been seized by the government. Government ownership of the spectrum is inefficient and unnecessary.
As argued in Chapter 33, the spectrum should be auctioned off to private owners. If declaring the spectrum public property means that broadcasters cannot enjoy free speech rights, that is itself an excellent reason to privatize the spectrum.
Some also claim that broadcasters cannot enjoy full First Amendment rights because broadcasting is too powerful and too pervasive to be free. But broadcasters are hardly more powerful than newspapers were in the 19th and early 20th century. And broadcasting faces competition from a growing number of other media outlets, from cable television to Direct Broadcast Satellites, the Internet, movies, VCRs, and, as always, the print media. Furthermore, television and radio are pervasive only when we want them to be; nobody is forced to own a radio or television set, or to turn it on. Finally, if we fear the power and pervasiveness of broadcasting, we should especially fear the power of government control of broadcasting.
|