From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Larry Agran IS being denied "free speech"
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 17:33:56 GMT

In alt.activism, ddc1@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:

[...]
>	According to the Communications Act of 1934(?) that set up the FCC the 
>airwaves, which are being used by the TV and radio stations, are on *loan* from
>the people who own them and they *have* to serve our interests. That includes 
>giving us all sides of any political arguement and all candidates in an 
>election. 
>	But under our fine gov't who thinks that they know everything, recently
>did away with the doctrine of equal time. So now it's up to the stations,
>really the networks, to decide which part of the issues we need to know.
[...]

You make it sound as if the equal time rule usurered in a golden age
of activism and grassroots candidates. That is not the way I remember
it.

The equal time rule said that stations had to air all sides of
controveral issues. The likely purpose, and certain effect, of the
equal time rule was to stop stations from airing *any* side of
controveral issues. The government thus got a nice quiet medium (that
was pretty much useless for activism). In exchange, the FCC severely
restricted the number of stations in any one market, thus, giving the
stations a government-supported monopoly and high advertising rates.

I'm enclosing a repost from alt.censorship that goes into this. But
the argument can be but in simipler terms: which has been more useful
to activism: newspapers that have been free of government control and
unjustifed government limits on number or TV with government-approved
"fairness"?

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
Subject: Censorship in exchange for monopoly (book review)

I've almost finished reading the book _Freedom, Technology, and the
First Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991). I recommend the book to
anyone interested in freedom and technology issues.

The premise of the book is that with *every* mass medium the
authorities and the media owners are tempted to strike a devil's
bargain: In exchange for content control (censorship) by the medium
owners the government imposes market controls (monopoly). The
government gets a quiet medium; the media owners get high profits
because potential competitors are frozen out of the market.

The book starts with the first mass medium, the newspaper. It details
how in England, 500 years ago, newspapers were brought to heal with
royal contracts. In the United States, in reaction against English
laws, newspapers are free (both of content control and market control)
but other media are not.

The next mass medium discussed is radio. In the early days of radio,
anyone could get a license. Interference problems were handled via
negotiations and in, at least once case, the courts. (The court
recognized that a station with a history of broadcasting on a
frequency had common law property rights to that frequency.)

Contrary to the official line, the problem for broadcasters was
competition, not interference. Using interference as a pretext, the
big broadcasters got Congress create the laws that lead to the FCC.
With the FCC and its predecessor, the number of broadcasters has been
severally restricted. In exchange, Congress passed regulations that
guaranteed easy access to the airwaves by incumbents. (These
regulations include the equal time rules, the so-called fairness
doctrine, the personal attack rule, and rules saying that political
advertising must be charged the lowest rate.) (Some of these
regulations were removed by Reagan; some remain.)

The book ends with a discussion of cable TV. Again we see government
(now local government) offering monopolies in exchange for incumbent
access and content controls.

What is the alternative to, for example, FCC regulation? The author
supports property rights. (Why should real estate be "ownable" while
parts of the airwaves are not?) For cable, he says that just as it is
unconstitutional for a local government to give one newspaper a
monopoly on sidewalk newspaper stands, it should be unconstitutional
for the government to give one cable company a monopoly on offering
cable service.

The only argument in the book of which I'm still not certain is one of
the author's last. He said that the government will often claim that
it needs to regulate the media in order to ensure diversity. In doing
this, the government says that it is supporting the principle of the
First Amendment. Examples, include laws which restrict the number of
media outlets someone may own and requirements that cable systems
provide community access channels. He says that the First Amendment
does not say that the government should require diversity, rather the
First Amendment says that the government can not interfere.

Random Closing thoughts:

This is a great book. It has probably a thousand references. I am now
on the look out for these devil's bargains. The bargains can be fought
two ways: 1) fight against *government-sanctioned* media monopolies 2)
fight against *government-suggested/imposed* content restrictions.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign