FCC — VOICES for REASON

Suppose you heard of someone who, in spite of its bloody and impoverished history, advocated socialism. Suppose that person thought the key to moving America toward socialism was using government power to ensure the media pushed an anti-capitalist message. Suppose that, in order to achieve this goal, he wrote a book arguing that the Federal Communications Commission should curtail the private media with a crippling array of restrictions and taxes, and then pour tens of billions of dollars into the creation of a government-funded “public” media. Suppose he also advocated subjecting Americans to mandatory “media training” so they would know how to “properly” interpret the media.

What would you say of such a person? Well, if you were the Obama Administration, you would say, “This person deserves a job at the FCC.”

I’ve written before about Mark Lloyd, chosen by the Obama Administration to be the FCC’s Chief Diversity Officer. But I was shocked to find that in Lloyd’s 2006 book Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he lays out the very proposals I noted above. I will have more to say about the book in the future. If we want to understand the anti-freedom path the FCC is heading down, we need to start by paying attention to the openly declared goals of its officers. As an agency which exists precisely in order to control the media, it should be especially alarming when one of its representatives is committed to radically expanding that control.

Image: flickr

Here’s the basic argument given for net neutrality, the idea that the government should regulate the Internet in order to ensure that all data is treated equally: The Internet belongs to society, it must be used for society’s benefit, and allowing Internet Service Providers to abuse their massive power by controlling networks for their own benefit is harmful to society; therefore, the government should step in to ensure neutrality (e.g., prevent ISPs from offering priority to users willing to pay more to guarantee, say, a reliable Skype connection).

Here’s how one recent column puts it. Approvingly citing a new book by Larry Downes, the columnist writes:

[Downes'] view is that “U.S. consumers have plenty of reasons to be suspicious of both the FCC and the communications industry.” His advice: “Consumers should ask themselves which of these powerful interests is more likely in the end to abuse its power. Who, in other words, has the greater potential to make things worse for everyone?”

Oh, wait. It turns out that both Downes and the column’s author, L. Gordon Crovitz, oppose net neutrality. They believe that the government poses the greater potential threat. Why? Read the rest of this entry »

Our new “speech czar” Mark Lloyd wants to increase “diversity” on the airwaves. That’s part of his job title, in fact: “Associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission.” You can get a flavor of what Lloyd means by “diversity” by perusing this 2007 article. As best I can tell, he means something on the order of “more liberals on the air.”

According to the FCC, which has been promoting “diversity” for decades, this is not only consistent with the First Amendment–it’s mandated by it: “The FCC’s interest in promoting diversity goes back to core principles underlying the First Amendment. Our nation benefits from a vibrant marketplace of ideas representing different points of view. [Lloyd] will help ensure that the communications field is competitive and generates widespread opportunities.”

By my reading, the core principle underlying the First Amendment is freedom. The First Amendment was established to prevent the government from regulating speech. It said, in effect, to leave each individual free to promote his views without suppression, interference, or punitive action by the government.

Read the rest of this entry »

After news came out that the Google Voice application for the iPhone had been rejected from Apple’s App Store, the Federal Communications Commission pounced. The FCC sent a “letter of inquiry” to Apple (and its partner AT&T), demanding that it justify its decision. (The letters came shortly after the FCC announced a separate investigation of exclusive partnerships between phone carriers and cell phone makers, such as the one between AT&T and Apple.)

Here’s the information the FCC demanded from Apple: Read the rest of this entry »

The Supreme Court has now upheld the FCC’s ability to regulate fleeting expletives. The Court sidestepped the constitutional question of whether such restrictions are at odds with the First Amendment. Instead, it stuck to procedural questions and reversed the Court of Appeals’ finding that the FCC’s fleeting expletive policy was “arbitrary and capricious.”

I’ve argued elsewhere that “indecency” regulations are inherently “arbitrary and capricious” (albeit not, perhaps, in the technical legal sense). One question I often get, however, is: Who cares? Why get so worked up about a few restrictions on vulgar language?

Read the rest of this entry »

The Senate passed a measure last week that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission from resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine.

I will be happy to see that threat to freedom of speech quashed, but I think there is an even more nefarious threat to free speech coming down the road–one that, to date, has gained far less attention.

Read the rest of this entry »