FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media Content.

Logos brings up a very reasonable argument; however, there are several reasons why this point of view is flawed; both for semantical/legal reasons, and for important, real life reasons as well. First of all, I would like to point out that although one may think the intent of the First Amendment is clear, it specifically states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." While the FCC is controlled and created by Congress, the FCC's powers are mainly executive in scope and do not necessarily reflect Congressional laws. Additionally, if we accept that the existence of the FCC is a legitimate operation of Congress from the start, then there is no logical conclusion but for the FCC to carry out its mandate. The debate about whether the Constitution is unsuited for today's society is one that has been going on for decades. Since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, there is no way it could have possibly envisioned the things that were to come. Television, the Internet, and other forms of mass media have allowed people to access information at unparalleled levels compared to previous times in history. Logos argues that the framers of the Constitution "knew the dangers of allowing the government control over speech and press." However, this is unfair and an arbitrary conclusion; how can my opponent know specifically why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written in this way? The Constitution was meant to distinguish itself from other forms of governance, specifically the kind in Great Britain, and so perhaps the things written in it were exaggerated for effect. To conclude on this particular part of the debate, I would argue that we must liberally interpret the Constitution; a strict constructionist point of view is simply unsuitable for a society that is so radically different from the one which the Constitution was written for. The most compelling argument is related to this last point. Reluctant though my opponent will most likely be, we have traditionally, as both a society and a race, have accepted reasonable infringements on the freedoms listed in the Constitution to protect the well-being of the citizens. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution make it quite clear that the well-being of Americans is to be protected; and this creates a clash in many instances. Take the classic case of Schenck v. United States in 1918. At stake were the full freedom of speech of Americans versus the protection of life and property of those same people. The Supreme Court recognized that a full freedom of speech is simply an untenable position; and although I, and certainly no one else, would prefer to see an abridgment of the right to freedom of speech, we must recognize that it is necessary in some instances. The most damning argument here is that we have so many different restrictions on the freedom of speech here in America, that the FCC's regulation of broadcast media content should be no different. We routinely protect children from things we consider unsafe or taboo; for instance, minors are not allowed to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or engage in other dangerous activities, and we restrict their access to materials such as pornography vociferously. While we may not like the abridgment of speech rights, as mentioned above, these are certainly necessary for the protection of certain parts of our society. Now, the argument can be made that we should not, at any cost, allow any infringement on this right, and that current regulation of media content is unjustified. This is a debate we can certainly engage in if my opponent so chooses; to preface my response if this comes up at a later time, though, I would argue that since print media is effectively regulated by consumers via things like civil liability for libel, the same chance for harmful content is unlikely to be seen. However, since the Internet and television are not newspapers (where consumers are looking for specific things), and nearly anything can be published, we risk harming children and exposing them to indecency. If parents wish to hide content from their children which they deem indecent, it is their choice; but we as a society need to have a general stance on the things that we deem indecent, because unfortunately, many parents are unwilling to take on this responsibility for themselves. To conclude my arguments, I would add that every time we allow capitalism to run rampant, it has harmed the citizenry. Look at the late 19th century, where major companies abused their workers because of a lack of a regulation. Time and time again, society has shown that a purely capitalistic system is not in the interests of the majority. There must be some level of state regulation.