[steve-b]

I'm willing to accept broadcast as an exception to the first amendment for technical reasons, because bandwidth is scarce, and because only the government can effectively enforce the licenses.

That is a legitimate justification for the government to shut down Joe Blow's transmitter if it interferes with the reception of people who are trying to listen to John Doe's broadcasts. It does not legitimately justify any sort of content regulation.

[ReignOfError]

I'm willing to accept broadcast as an exception to the first amendment for technical reasons, because bandwidth is scarce, and because only the government can effectively enforce the licenses.

That is a legitimate justification for the government to shut down Joe Blow's transmitter if it interferes with the reception of people who are trying to listen to John Doe's broadcasts. It does not legitimately justify any sort of content regulation.

But the government has to decide whether Joe Blow or John Doe has the right to transmit at a given frequency. There have to be some criteria for who gets a license and who doesn't; at the very least the government has to ensure that the infrastructure is in place for emergency information.

The FCC is tasked with administering a scarce public resource for the common good; and while I'd like to see the market as the main constraint, that isn't technologically feasible in over-the-air broadcasts. The FCC's regulations aren't too onerous, and are subject to public pressure, so if it's not as free as I'd like it to be, at least it's democratic.