Posted on 02/06/2004 12:44:34 PM PST by RJCogburn
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property — by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort. — Ayn Rand, “The Property Status of Airwaves” (1964)
Outrage over Janet Jackson’s racy half-time performance during Super Bowl XXXVIII did not go unnoticed by television’s government overseers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is actually considering fining CBS for the broadcast.
According to the February 3 Washington Times, “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell ... ordered an investigation of the Super Bowl halftime show.... ‘I am outraged at what I saw ... ,’ Mr. Powell said.” So-called pro-family groups and a number of talk-radio hosts are likewise disgusted with the Super Bowl show.
Okay, so people found the show revolting. But what does that have to do with the government?
A lot, unfortunately. Ever since the 1934 Communications Act was passed, the federal government has ruled the airwaves. Naturally, it was dressed up as a way of protecting the “public interest” — whatever that means — but what it really boiled down to was government control of another industry, at a time when government was racing to control everything.
A February 3 letter to the editor of the Washington Post sums the problem up perfectly. A reader complained, “I thought that the Federal Communications Commission was created in part to keep trash off the airwaves and to allow the free expression of ideas.”
What those who like government regulation of the airwaves don’t realize is this: “trash” is as much a part of the “free expression of ideas” as anything else. It’s the contemptible end of the spectrum that helps us to properly identify the praiseworthy end of the spectrum.
Neither the FCC nor any other branch of government has any business harassing broadcasters or regulating their industry. Government exists to protect people’s rights — and no one has the “right” to “good” TV. Television stations are private property — as are the frequencies they broadcast over — and don’t require any assistance from government busybodies.
Of course, there is no way of guaranteeing that TV will be “trash-free” without a government regulator — but then again, there is no way of guaranteeing “trash-free” TV even with government in charge. A quick glance at the overwhelming majority of prime-time TV programs is proof enough of that.
Still, people want to feel as if their government is looking out for them, making sure that the programs they and their children watch will be “good.” The fact that the definition of “good” changes over time really means this: the programs they and their children are watching are better identified at any given time as “government-approved.”
Is that what a free society is about?
Could we PLEASE apply this to the socialist media.
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).
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.
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.
We might as well discuss "The Property Status of Air". Hey, you're breathing my oxygen! Stop it!
My choice would be a 10+ megawatt spark gap. It's my constitutional right!
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.
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.
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.
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
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.