The Government Doesn’t Belong in Television

Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | 2/6/04 | Scott McPherson

[mabelkitty]

Um, yes is does.
Licenses are there but for the blessing of the government.
Nobody has a "right" to be on television.

[anobjectivist]

How about the internet?

Does it belong there too?

[eno_]

Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to "own" spectrum?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Nobody has a "right" to be on television.

Could we PLEASE apply this to the socialist media.

[af_vet_rr]

How about the internet?

Howard Dean would have you present a national ID to access your own computer in your own home. Granted, he's a nut, but for a major candidate to even have such an opinion tells you where we are headed.

Personally, I'd rather see the FCC back out and see those offended stop running to the government and instead goto the advertisers, who can actually put some pressure on Viacom, etc. Hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of dollars of fines haven't exactly slowed Howard Stern down. Long term advertising contracts do.

Heck, any amount Viacom/CBS is fined, is probably smaller than the payout from just one of their SuperBowl commercials.

I shouldn't take a jab at those who see something that offends them and immediately run to the FCC, but they really need to learn that the advertisers control things, and it's the NFL, and most players in the NFL are definitely not role models for small children (except for Kurt Warner and Brett Favre and the few others like them).

[MEGoody]

Sorry, fella, but I don't have a problem with the FCC oversight. In fact, I wish they'd do more.

It's one thing to have Janet baring a boob on MTV - people expect that kind of thing and make judgments about their kids watching it accordingly. But to pull such a stunt during a half-time show - what should be a perfectly acceptable program for any member of the family - is unacceptable.

[RushLake]

Someone else has made the point about the internet. I am also concerned about radio as well. As despicable as the trash were at halftime, we have to remember that it may someday be Hillary's FCC in charge of the airwaves. We've already had a condescending supreme court hand us a gigantic first amendment setback with its CFR dictate. As much as we may all despise what no class Janet Jackass and her no talent buddies did, we have to be cognizant that their handlers may someday be in charge of the government again.

[frgoff]

Televison is a "push" medium. Which means that I cannot pre-emptively block content I deem offensive.

People will say, if you don't like what's on, don't watch it. The problem with that, as clearly demonstrated during the Superbowl, is that that option is only possible if you know IN ADVANCE what the content will be.

The outrage over the Superbowl is not that Janet did her exposé, but that she did it in a totally unexpected forum. People did NOT choose to watch the superbowl hoping or even expecting to see such a thing.

CBS can rightly be considered as violating the public trust because they violated the trust people had in them to maintain the type of atmosphere and content reasonable people would expect to see during the superbowl.

[jpl]

Where in the Constitution is the government authorized to "own" spectrum?

If the government had no control over the spectrum, any schmuck with enough money could build a radio tower in his backyard and broadcast whatever he wanted on whatever frequency he wanted to use. It wouldn't be long at all before you had total chaos reigning.

[HAL9000]

Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves”

We might as well discuss "The Property Status of Air". Hey, you're breathing my oxygen! Stop it!

[eno_]

So the government is authorized to "own" anything where might be "chaos?"

[eno_]

If you really want to put a serious scare into the lamestream media, intruduce legislation that would re-auction the spectrum annually, and remit all the proceeds to taxpayers in proportion to taxes paid.

That would be the purest expression of the people owning the airwaves.

[eno_]

See my post #13. Make them pay. Every year. And not to the government, which has no rightful claim to the money, but to the people.

[templar]

any schmuck with enough money could build a radio tower in his backyard and broadcast whatever he wanted on whatever frequency he wanted to use.

My choice would be a 10+ megawatt spark gap. It's my constitutional right!

[templar]

So the government is authorized to "own" anything where might be "chaos?"

Interstate commerce clause, general welfare clause. The answer is yes to your question for things that affect the public as a whole. See court decisions regarding the establishment of the TVA if you want to study the legal authority in some depth.

[eno_]

The general welfare clause authorizes nothing. It directs. And the intertstate commerce clause forbids states from interfering in interstate commerce.

Quote the constitutional language and provide simple explantions. If you can't, it's probably a post-New Deal constitutional travesty.

For the entire history of the Republic before the New Deal it was simple: If it isn't in there, the fedgov is not allowed to do it. Even with the New Deal, neither language nor original intent have changed.

[templar]

The general welfare clause authorizes nothing. It directs.

In this case, it appears that the government is following the directions by regulating use of the airwaves. Without that regulation there would be no communication through the airwaves at all. Use a bit of common sense.

[af_vet_rr]

That's a great thing about the internet, it's largely free of regulation, and people can broadcast over it whatever they want. Yes, some will choose to deal in porn, but it can be blocked, and you get to read and hear what you want to read and hear and not what somebody put together as the result of some focus group somewhere.

Anytime the government even sniffs around the internet it bothers me. It is such a powerful tool for freedom, that most governments are probably scared of it.

[PAR35]

For the entire history of the Republic before the New Deal it was simple: If it isn't in there, the fedgov is not allowed to do it. Even with the New Deal, neither language nor original intent have changed.

Radio licensing was not a New Deal innovation. The New Dealers didn't take over until 1933. Radio licensing was over a decade old by that point. Here is one example.

"Radio station WLW has a history as colorful and varied as any in the United States. It is unique in that it was the only station ever granted authority to broadcast with 500kW.

The station actually began with 20 watts of power as a hobby of Powel Crosley, Jr. The first license for WLW was granted by the Department of Commerce in 1922. Crosley was authorized to broadcast on a wavelength of 360 meters with a power of 50W, three evenings a week."
http://www.tvhandbook.com/History/History_radio.htm