We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
What is a right for Jyllands-Posten should also be a right for CBS David Holcberg of the Ayn Rand Institute makes some good points about the FCC’s proposed fines against CBS. If a Danish newspaper can establish that freedom of expression does indeed mean the right to do things that will offend some people, should that notion not also apply in the ‘Land of the Free’?
The $3.6 million in ‘indecency’ fines proposed by the FCC against CBS are an ominous attack on the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
Just as the government does not fine newspapers that publish cartoons that Muslims deem indecent, it should not fine broadcasters that air shows that viewers deem indecent. Viewers are free to change the channel or turn off their TV set if they do not like what they see. They can not be forced to patronize a station they find indecent.
Moreover, it is the parents – not the government – who should be responsible for determining what their children are allowed to watch on TV.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I thought you guys were all in favour of individual rights? and limited government who were primarily responsible for enforcing contracts between individuals..
How can individual parents make the correct desisions for their children if the TV companies are breaking the rules??
The stated public policy of the U.S. is, unfortunately, clear: the people (i.e., the government) own the airwaves, not the broadcasters (who are mere “trustees”). The government can, therefore, impose any viewpoint-neutral restrictions it chooses.
“Freedom of the press requires the freedom to own a press.”
KipEsquire is right, although I disagree with the “unfortunately” disclaimer.
In the US the broadcasters use the public’s spectrum at the forebearance of the owners, the people. The broadcaster pays only a nominal license fee for the right to use the spectrum. As in any leasehold or rental the owner has the right to set reasonable restrictions on use.
Yes, which is why we think the state has no biz punishing a TV station for offending someone.]
No, not really. I see their primary responsibility as keeping the barbarians with bombs (domestic and foreign) away from everyone else. And in any case, exactly who do you think CBS had a contract with promising not to offend them?
And whose rules would that be?
And is regarding Janet Jackson’s boob ‘offensive’ not a viewpoint?
Also I am curious… does that mean ‘offensive’ content such as Janet Jackson’s boob (which I personally find rather inoffensive) can be shown on non-public satellite and cable without the FCC kicking down someone’s door?
Whatever is broadcast will offend somebody somewhere………..dammit, that has really spoilt my superbowl because my kids never knew that anyone except mom had a breast…even TWO….oh horror! If a station offends you, don’t watch it in future. Broadcasters in a free country will lose/gain viewers/listeners if they cross an unacceptable line & will be self-regulatory…..after all, there’s money in it. There’s much to choose from out there and, if the sight of Blair offends me, then I go to Deutsche Welle which also shows our Tone from time to time & I am further offended……….oh dear, what a life. Read a book.
People should be able to watch whatever the crap they want to watch without government interference. However, that coin has two sides. What if sit down and want to watch a football game and some celebrewhore turns my football game into soft-porn? I believe people can watch whatever filth they want, but I also believe in accountability regarding truth in advertising. It should be clear before a show airs what the content will be. That way I can actually choose to watch something instead of having someone else’s choice crammed down my throat without prior notice.
Winzeler: You are, of course correct. As Harold Geneen once said: “I don’t want any surprizes.”
Perry,
In answer to your question, no, the FCC does not have jurisdiction over cable-only or satellite channels, only over-the-air channels. And the reason for that jurisdiction has already been stated.
For example, the TV shows “The Shield” and “Nip/Tuck” are both broadcast in the US over Fox’s cable-only network F/X.
Another example is when toilet-jock Howard Stern left over-the-air radio broadcasting because of his constant battles with the FCC. He signed up to broadcast on the Sirius satellite system. Absolutely no restraints on him now.
I guess that, in the US, you could say that over-the-air broadcasters are expected, by the FCC, to produce “PG” type of entertainment. If the networks wanted to produce, and broadcast, “R” type of entertainment, it would be very easy. Do what Fox did and start a cable-only network such as F/X. And if they wanted to produce and broadcast “X” type of entertainment, then they could start a premium channel.
Thus the libertarian critique of the social conservative position, although I’m sure many “save the children” liberals were also horrified that Janet Jackson had breasts, and its demand that everything be filtered through the “sex is dirty” moral collander before helpless, lust-ridden people are allowed to see/read/hear/participate in any given activity.
In very broad terms, the modern liberal wants control over economic life, but is fairly lenient about personal matters (with some serious exceptions), while the modern conservative wants much more economic freedom, but much stricter rules about personal and social activity, (again, with some serious exceptions).
What is the practical result of this political dichotomy? Any compromise between the two opposing factions means that some economic freedom is traded for the right to further regulate some social/personal freedoms.
Regardless of the final specific outcome of such an arrangement, guess who is the consistent loser?
Jackson’s tit and/or the status of the “airwaves” is a sideshow to the relentless attack on personal liberty from both sides of the aisle.
This blog is horrible. I get so depressed reading posts like veryretired’s. It gets even worse when I hear people telling me that they are ‘libertarian’ AND that they are for socialized medicine. Are real libertarians making progress anywhere?
I figure Janet Jackson considered her act so boring she staged her tits instead.
If we as consumers tune into a football game we’re not expecting (or buying) a flash dance. Hey, when we tune into PBS were’re not expecting to see Jerry Falwell shock and awe in thirty seconds, are we?
And to think, this sexualized cultural environment began back in a time when ‘flower was peace-love-and-understanding power’ by a small group of sexually disfunctional people high on LSD who managed to convince an entire population that the true path to finding inner self-understanding and narcissistic self-pleasure was to screw as many people and things as possible (even your sheep dog can bring you pleasure!) without consequence of thought or action.
‘Let is all hang out’ as the saying goes.
I do wonder what our culture would be like if there were no restraints upon entertainment standards. I mean, who is to say that one day we will be entertained at half-time by a guy screwing his sheepdog?
John B. You need to explain what is unlibertarian about veryretired’s comment. Maybe you just didn’t read it carefully.
Verity, where are you?
Civil disobedience happens when our conscience tells us to act responsibly. This is a necessary process on the road to more freedom. There are good reasons why not to allow anybody, not even the government, to steal from you or to rule and patronize your life.
And this is my visuell contribution:
Censorship Poster
There will always be ‘restrictions’… if you are marketing to the Bible Belt, you will not allow bare titties and sheepdog shaggers on your programmes. If you are marketing to the secular Bevis and Butthead fans, you will not allow Jerry Falwell bible readings in your programmes however sheepdog shagging might well attract your target audience. In fact, that rather sounds like the world we already live in, so not much need to wonder what ‘our’ culture will be like really 🙂
“And in any case, exactly who do you think CBS had a contract with promising not to offend them?
And whose rules would that be? ”
The rules set by the democratically elected government, therefor the rules set by the majority of viewers.
Yes, I know democracy sucks.
And its not the ideal solution.
As I said before, soon we will all have to have digital subscription so that will be a lot better for personal choice and the government can stay out of it.
Did you see the offending material? I don’t agree with censorship most of the time but this did over step the mark imo. it was basically young teens having an orgy, they weren’t naked, but it made clear what was going on.
Maybe thats fine later at night, but I think the scene went out at 9pm, when many kids are still watching.
Don’t you agree with some kind of standards on channels that any member of the public can access.
You would surely not wanna see hardcore porn playing on a public channel all through the day?
How is a parent supposed to control what their kid is exposed to?
btw what exactly is your definition of “barbarians with bombs”
Hell, the day they advertise a superbowl halftime show featuring human/sheepdog fucking I’ll tune in! It’s got to be better than the crap I hear they offer now. Let the market self regulate fer fuck’s sake! Give the people what they want. I won’t like it, you may not like it, but so fucking what? I’m all for a Wallmart spectrum. I’ll find a few gems (lamb ribs… ummm) and skip what I don’t want. Why is this even a question around here? People in general have crap taste. That’s their right.
Bob Mologna, if it was just adults that were affected I would agree with you, but it is not.
I love my pussycat…….but, believe me, it’s purely platonic. Even if I owned a sheepdog I wouldn’t push my luck… pussycats can be dangerous but sheepies will give you a bad conscience which is just as bad, so I would advise some distancing, love them though you may.
Girls are best……………..really.
Dave,
Parents can control their children’s viewing through the V-Chip. This is a fairly simple and effective device that most parents don’t bother to master. Instead they just complain about declining standards and demand that somebody else (big brother government) control their children’s viewing for them. Furthermore, most families have access to cable and satellite which have no controls. I control my children’s viewing but I think that the the constant diet of violent cop dramas at 3pm is more morally and socially toxic to children than the site of Janet Jackson’s nipple. I know which would be most distressing for my kids.
Dave, my children watch on television what I allow them to watch. We’ll all be skipping the superbowl this year, sheepdogs or no. Once they reach a certain age I’ll be hard pressed to control what they can see on the internet, like it or not. And I don’t much like it. I’m a geek and can easily install surfcontrol or somesuch at home but they will have friends with less control. The free flow of information/images is a good thing but presents problems for parents. Short of wholesale censorship, I see no way to stop adolescents from viewing things we would prefer they did not see. It is a changed world to some extent.
I agree the situation can be somewhat depressing, and also that I am not a proper libertarian (it’s been mentioned before).
Political processes in a factional system depends on continual compromises and a complex “economy” of horsetrading and backscratching. This is normal in ANY governmental system, or any organization for that matter.
The significant element in the equation is—what are the actors, i.e., operatives of the state, allowed to do?
The point of the construction of a constitutional republican system is to limit the power of the state. Practically every sentence in the founding documents of the US describes what is allowed and not allowed to the government.
The most all-encompassing recognition of powers in the constitution is the reservation of all powers not specifically enunciated as powers of the federal government to remain vested in the states and/or the people.
There are a hundred ways to protect children from this danger or that ugly idea or picture. Why immediately choose the most clumsy, most repressive, most truly dangerous path, when so many other, better options are available?
It is an indication of the pervasive nature of collectivist, statist ideology that the default position for so many people in our culture is “there oughtta be a law”.
The task that confronts any who truly desire to restore individual rights and dismantle the overarching power of the state, which intrudes on every aspect of our lives, is to replace the statist default with the idea that free citizens are best able to control the content of their own lives, and of their children.
As odd as it may seem, Jackson’s boob is as good a place to start as any.
When I was a kid on the farm…………really!
Give over.
Children are only surprized once with a specific……and they will get past it…..just as you did. Or maybe it’s only you who didn’t.
Dave,
How can individual parents make the correct desisions for their children if the TV companies are breaking the rules??
Other people have attacked the condition satisfactorily, I’m going to attack the conditional. What the hell do you mean by “make the correct decisions for their children”? Even if one regards parents as fully entitled to take all decisions for their children – which I do not – those decisions (particularly in matters of taste, such as TV-viewing) should be their decisions, not “the correct” ones as determined by some utilitarian standard or moral nomarch.
Ya gotta love libertarians. They believe that not being able to see the wrinkled tit of some skanky old has-been on over-the-air TV at half-time of a sporting event is an outrage equal to smashing printing presses that might be producing today’s version of “Common Sense”.
Not equal, but essentially equivalent. Where making the content involves volunteers – which is as true of printing a political book as putting on a song and dance act at the superbowl – we aren’t interested in the content. Free expression is a procedural value. The whole point of it is that it is not for regulators and censors to decide on behalf of the audience (or potential audience) what’s good communication (permissible) and what’s bad (forbidden).
People who are unconvinced by that need to look at historical and contemporary society. Political censorship has almost always been justified in the same moral terms as censorship of taste: ‘this is bad for our society; it will corrupt the morally infirm’.
Guy, so anything non-harmful that governments ban is tyranny, right? Therefore, if two naked guys decide on a little buggery on main street at high noon, no government has any right whatsoever to prevent from them doing it, right? After all, it’s a very slippery slope from banning buggery on main street at high noon to soviet style total prohibition of any disapproved act, right?
In order to be offended by CBS, you only had to turn on the TV. In the case of Jyllands Posten, you had to buy the newspaper.
There is a remedy available for those offended by Jyllands Posten: refrain from buying it.
There is no equivalent analogy available for CBS: airwaves are a scarce good and over-air broadcasters are a lot fewer in number.
The CBS fine isn’t so much about the “offending” part, but about remedy: i.e. preventing a repeat.
But the how does that square with the remark about governments enforcing contracts or anything at all to do with individuals?
If you are going to have the state doling out broadcast bandwidth, it should be concerned with avoiding stations interfereing with each other (i.e. who gets what frequency where), not what they broadcast… just leave that to the market.
Bob, have no fear the free market offers all sorts of sheepdog entertainment choices. The distinction however, is than if a customer chooses to watch football but ends up forced to watch a flashdance instead so much for free market choice. This is the dilemma parents face everytime they turn on the public airwaves.
I don’t wish to see the airwaves or bandwidths controlled by the government, I want these entities to maintain their own part in offering honest advertisement of the products they are selling. That’s all.
The longer we protect the airwaves right to con the public with false advertising the longer we remain suckers in their system.
Dog: avoiding a repeat is easy – sell your TV.
Inconvenient? TOUGH.
JJM
I really so no difference in the underlying philosophy of the events in Denmark and the FCC fines. In both cases there is a group A which is offended by material of type X, while most other groups do not give a damn. German laws against holocaust denial are exactly the same.
I hear people sounding upset because their particular ox is getting gored. It makes no difference to me whether a Christian is offended by silly sex; a Muslim is offended by Mohammed dumb jokes or a Jew is offended by idiotic holocaust conspiracy theories.
If we go the other way, that we ban something which annoys one minority (or majority, who cares?) then…. I’m deeply offended by Moon Landing deniers. Can I have them banned for me? I find it painful and I know it is deeply painful for Buzz. So lets shut them up along with Sex, Nazi’s and Cartoonists!
Now. The airwaves. Why are you limiting discussion to ‘programs broadcast over the air on the ancient TV spectrum allocation’? When I travel on jobs I often stay at folks homes. I would say most of them connect to cable; rarely does anyone watch the ‘old’ channels. There is no shortage of television bandwidth. Seems like the typical in the US was about 1000 channel capacity with a small subset of interest to that individual family actually enabled.
Buy what you want. Connect your TV to your cable and put your kids on the Disney Channel. They’ll love it. And they will see things you don’t want to see somewhere. When I was a kid it was pictures torn from adult magazines by ‘the bad kid’ and passed around amongst everyone else. You certainly saw the animals doing it. Nothing secret there.
Kids will always find the things you don’t want them too, simply because they have to challenge parental authority. If you did a half way decent job, they will turn out halfway decent people. Or sometimes, just randomly, despite anything you can do, they won’t. That’s life.
Circumscribing market choice will not make a damn bit of difference to your results, but it will affect thousands or millions of others negatively.
I should have expanded my reponse to Dog (ah, mildly-incensed haste, *sigh*):
You are wrong, you did not have to ‘just turn on the TV’, you also had to go out and buy one in the first place. There is NO difference between this scenario and being in the habit of buying one’s favoured paper.
Moreover, there is no difference between turning on a TV you had to actually BUY or formally accept as a gift and having your kids turn it on where it was showing some skin, and getting those same kids to buy your paper for you at the newsagent and them walking along an aisle that has publications that are almost-but-not-quite pornographic on sale: isn’t there some Murdoch rag in the UK infamous for regularly having scantily clad females on page three? What about the womens’ and teen magazines, freely available and actually advertised in wire-frame holders out on the street no less (!), touting better sex and how to dump that annoying boyfriend etc. Where are you going to draw the line, dog? How are you going to keep people on one side of it without breaking down and actually advocating the government threatening to point guns at people for crossing it? Without that you can bet your backside that publishers WILL cross it in pursuit of a dollar.
JJM
While I’m at it…
In the thread on boron fuels, Mike Lorrey noted that the USAF feared unfettered access to space transportation as a threat to national security. From a quick look at the paper he gave a link to, the offending fear in question seemed to be in the chapter entitled “Digital cacophony” or somesuch: it wasn’t just transport technology they were afraid of, it was the mass availability of all sorts of technology that the US govt would find itself unable to control the use of. Naturally this included (as the chapter itself noted) weapons systems of all kinds, but given the title of the chapter presumably it would also include wholly uncontrolled communications systems themselves as a threat – ie, fear of the free press of the modern era. Looking at the comments from syn and dog, we can see where the mongrels are going to get their support from – people touting the ever-ready For The Children (TM) line.
JJM
If I had to choose between banning Janet Jackson’s tits and the Disney Channel it would be the pap on Disney every time – but why should it be either? The idea of some Government quango imposing fines like this in the country that also gave us Deep Throat in main stream cinemas is bizarre.
Ian – Because the film company that made Deep Throat was a private business and the airwaves belong to everyone.
If you need a reminder of the offending boob; refreshed your memory.
I wonder if the nitwits who had a hissy fit over the pierced breast realised they were doing more for Janet Jackson’s than they were helping “the children”. Lord knows I love seeing CBS hurt as often as possible but such a big fine for such a minor event is ludicrous in extremis.
Verity: What is different between frequency spectrum and land? If a particular frequency cannot be bought and sold, why then is it different to buy and sell a particular parcel of land?
AID – Had it been a genuine mistake, it would have been a big “So What?” moment. But it was the sheer, cheap, sleazy manipulativeness that churned the stomach.
I can’t remember the name of the male singer, but do you really think he spontaneously came up with “wardrobe malfunction” all by himself? It reeked of premanufactured PR-speak.
Dale, I think it is common accord throughout the entire human race that the air is free. It belongs to all of us. That is why we have pollution laws. If you pollute the air, you are polluting the property of everone else in the area.
I cannot give you a scientific answer.
It is a misconception that cable and satellite channels are totally free to do provide whatever content they like.
The FCC do not presently regulate cable or satellite. But the broadcasters regulate themselves, because there is always the threat of regulation. All it would take is an increase in the number of complaints to the FCC about a cable channel, and they’d begin to regulate. (The only reason you’ll see more adult material on premium channels like HBO is that they KNOW few evangelical conservatives are watching, and therefore that there are few complaints likely to arise.)
And what do we think will happen when car manufacturers start to add Sirius Satellite Radio to their cars en masse? Say ‘hello’ to the FCC again, Howard Stern.
Some people here STILL aren’t getting it. When you cave to allow anybody any regulation or censorship for whatever reason on whatever media in whatever fashion, you have crossed the line, practically speaking. And ideaologically speaking? …… Government censorship is immoral.
Verity:
Unless one is so scientifically illiterate as to believe that the airwaves are literally waves of air, your answer to Dale is irrelevant. Broadcast frequencies are a form of radiation, discovered by human beings, developed by human beings, produced by human beings, propagated by human beings. Without human beings they wouldn’t exist, apart from as naturally occurring static. The air, on the other hand, is simply one of the mediums through which they are propagated.
Dale is right to ask his question. And I’ll ask it again. What is the difference between broadcast frequencies and land?
Beats me. Except Jyllands-Posten bought the paper. In other words, it paid for its natural resource.
Justin Timber
wanklake was the person who pulled the shirt off.Never heard of him, although that doesn’t mean a thing. “Wardrobe malfunction” reeks of part of the script. I mean, give me a break! The whole thing was an insultingly obvious set-up to stir up interest in a dimming star.
Yes Guy Herbert thats what I meant the correct desision for their children according to what they the parents deem to be correct, based on their individual knowledge of their children.
“Even if one regards parents as fully entitled to take all decisions for their children – which I do not.”
I don’t quite understand that… what do you mean? if not parents who? surely you don’t think children should be let loose to do whatever? Parents have to set some kind of limits surely? for safey reasons if nothing else.
Perry, We are not talking about censorship or state control, we are talking about parents getting access to TV channels in good faith and then those channels breaking the rules. They are breaking the contract with the consumer and therefor parents are not able to make the decisions they might want to make about what there kids are exposed to.
As syn said “if a customer chooses to watch football but ends up forced to watch a flashdance instead so much for free market choice.”
This TV company was breaking the rules and therefor corrupting free market choice, how can you think that is ok??
“… what is the difference between broadcast frequencies and land?”
Actually the difference is rather substantial. It would be quite difficult to grow a decent potato in the ether, but I digress.
The US government decided in the early 20th century that the broadcast frequencies were to be public property because at the time, the suitable frequency range for reliable signal transmission was very limited. The turn of the century had seen economic disruption due to the formation of business trusts (coal, oil, steel, etc.) and their break up during the presidency of Teddy Rooseveldt. The government did not want such mischief to be repeated with the new broadcast technology. Since those early days, the suitable broadcast frequency range was expanded somewhat by technological advances to include the FM frequencies and now digital transmission which coupled with compression alogrithms can transmit even more data.
However, there is still a limited range of frequencies that are suitable for broadcasting reliable signals, and so these frequencies are under goverment control to insure, oddly enough, competition.
so, land is much more abundant and harder for a small group of greedy capitalists (or socialists) to control than the very limited broadcast spectrum.
Uain –
The argument from scarcity doesn’t wash. Yes, I know that was/is the usual reason given by statists/collectivists, but it still doesn’t wash. Sure, available bandwith has always been limited. But the available quantity of any resource – land, oil, iron, minerals, whatever – is always fixed. No natural resource is infinite, including the broadcast frequency spectrum.
So how is the spectrum different? Why is it public property, held in trust by the government on behalf of the “public interest”, instead of being subject the same private property ownership rules as land (and oil and iron and minerals etc.)?
RobtE
I would propose that the difference is that the range of useful frequencies with which to reliably broadcast information is indeed a limited resource. Natural resources, although endlessly predicted to be so, have yet to become so (as yet).
I believe broadcast spectrum is one of the few cases that government control has fostered competition by keeping the entry cost low. If the frequencies could be bought up, speculated, closed, manipulated by a few wealthy conglomerates, then all broadcast media would be a vast wasteland of sameness. No talk radio, no cable news, just CBS, BBC and Al Jazeera.
As far as the beatiality at half time goes, does anyone remember the old Bud Light commercials ? We had a bull terrier fawned over by the “Swedish Bikini Team” because he had a watered down version of Bud. I think this portrayal of women was way more offensive than Janet’s nipple.
Uain –
Is your argument from scarcity of resource or the public interest (quality of output)? Either way, the free market is still the best way to deliver both. Have a look at this article. It’s forty-some years old, but still worth reading.
First, B’s Freak, that’s redundant. Bud Lite is the linguistic equivalent of warm heat. Or wet water.
RE airwaves and land. In one usage, they are the same. We grant licensing authority to the government to regulate the use of highways. Your equipment must meet agreed upon standards and you must operate it according to established rules. When using the roadways, you can expect others to do the same or else be given fines or revocations.
You cannot argue against licensing of airwaves without arguing against vehicle laws in the same breath. Or maybe after a short gasp.
To the point. Informed consent. It often helps to take a case to the extreme to see the principles better demonstrated. Instead of Janet’s pierced nipple, imagine this.
You are driving down a street with your young children. It’s lunch time so when you see a pizza sign and a big plastic clown out front advertising family style pizza, you stop. But after ordering your pizza and beginning to eat, a stripper walks out, climbs on a table and begins her routine.
By the rules most people accept on this site, a business should be entitled to have strippers climb up on tables and take their clothes off. There was no sign at the door saying there would be no strippers, so what’s the problem?
The problem is informed consent. Unless you propose to require all businesses to post a list at the door of everything that won’t happen on their premises, you have to accept the concept of a reasonable implied contract.
People are mad at SeeBS for two reasons. One, they violated the literal contract under which they leased the airwaves. And, secondly, they violated the implied contract that you were tuning in for a football game, not a strip show. (albeit a pretty pathetic one)
RobtE –
Fascinating article, thanks. I would propose that the advent of the FCC was due to a perception of scarcity born of the potential for mischief. Broadcasting a signal would carry some harmonics that could overlap into the next subscribed frequency. So if I had deep pockets, I could crank up my power, interfere with your broadcasts until your aggravated listeners tuned to me instead. So I believe the goverment intervention was more along the lines to protect the property rights of the owner of the particular frequency and territory. Many broadcasters can own a given frequency. Their rights are protected by the FCC licensing them for a specific transmitter power. That way a Rap radio station in town A does not interfere with the Classical radio station some miles away in town B, even though they are using the same frequency.
Again, I think it comes down to protection of the property rights of the owner of the broadcast license because the suitable range of frequencies that can reliably and inexpensively be utilzed is indeed a limited resource.
The Federal Radio Commission (ancestor of the FCC) was set up in the 1920s by Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover. He presented it as a mere ‘traffic cop of the airwaves’ arbitrating claims to spectrum from the gold rush earlier in the decade. But he also made speeches deploring the vulgarity of commercial radio and insisted (looking across the Atlantic, perhaps) that radio was meant for higher things besides ‘advertising chatter’.
As a centrist Republican in the Theodore Roosevelt mode, Hoover wanted a regulated-by-exception system with no overt censorship; but he planned for a public sector based on stations attached to universities (cf the land-grant colleges), foundations and other nonprofit entities. This later grew into the PBS.
By the late 1930s under FDR, licenses, when not a matter of political boondoggles and pork barrelling (LBJ made his pile out of the Austin, TX franchise) were sometimes granted for promises of performance, e.g. so much uplift a week. The sponsorship system had reduced ad minutage drastically– far below today’s on TV. Networks, which were not directly under FCC supervision, were enforcing minimum standards on their affiliates, with aspirants to classiness in broadcasting such as Paley of CBS and Sarnoff of NBC, both admirers of the BBC, dictating the tone. The hordes of small stations peddling hot gospel, bogus cures and investment swindles had been chased off the air.
The so-called Golden Age of Wireless is an interesting study in the State’s ability to change an industry by indirect means. Like TV in the 1950s, the broadcasters did not mind being steered away from trash because they found that advertisers paid more for the middle class night-time audience which preferred Toscanini and Orson Welles to soap and Aimee Semple McPherson. If radio had been left to flourish like weeds, with antitrust laws to stop chaining and networking, it might have remained a low-class affair incapable of appealing to the more educated and sophisticated portions of the population.
…. Awesome! Thanks!
The libertarians’ rejection of the idea of public standards of decency is a major bar for me. I have a hard time warming up to people who as much as say, “I’ll just have a nice hearty crap here in the town well, and if you don’t like it you can drink elsewhere.”
I do nothing of the sort. I am all for social pressure and resent the state passing laws that prevent sociel pressure from working.
As the town well is almost certainly not his to crap in, I would favour rather serious action against such a person. It is, at the very least, criminal damage.
You really need to discover what libertarian types really do think before deciding what a turn off their ideas are.
Also I am curious… does that mean ‘offensive’ content such as Janet Jackson’s boob (which I personally find rather inoffensive) can be shown on non-public satellite and cable without the FCC kicking down someone’s door?
…or the internet, yup.
The basis for the FCC’s authority to regulate is the usage of public spectrum, if you’re not using public spectrum, the FCC has no jurisdiction over what you’re doing. That’s why outfits like cable and satellite TV providers and the porn sites that do video streaming can show whatever they wish, so long as what they’re showing isn’t criminal in it’s own right.