Beware of FCC’s “Back Door” Strategy to Stifle Free Speech
Every media market in South Carolina has a conservative talk radio show enjoyed by thousands of listeners. It may be a nationally famous commentator like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, or a local host.
Two markets in our state are served by liberal-focused Air America affiliates and in the Midlands listeners can hear liberal commentators from National Public Radio. The ratio of liberal versus conservative skews far to the right — far more stations carry conservative programming than liberal. The reason for this is simple: In South Carolina most listeners are conservatives themselves, so the free market provides more programming geared towards that audience.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates broadcast and cable media as well as Internet transmissions, recently held a seemingly innocuous field hearing in Charleston to solicit public input as they develop a National Broadband Policy. Although you may not have heard about these hearings, they are nothing more than a back-door attempt by elements within the government to restrict and regulate speech under the guise of promoting “diversity.”
Part of the diversity advocated by the FCC is expanding broadband into rural and lower-income areas, which would be a much needed improvement. The Internet is our most important communications and educational technology and the more folks who have access to it the better. But access is one matter, regulating content is another. The concern is that some of those involved in developing the federal broadband plan could very well use the access and diversity issue as a means to accomplish their true end: driving conservative talk radio and Christian broadcasting off the air.
Case in point: The senior adviser in development of the broadband plan is Mark Lloyd, the FCC’s new Chief Diversity Czar. In his 2006 book, “Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America,” Lloyd describes his view of free speech this way: “At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”
Lloyd clearly supports policies and rules over what he sees as the “farce” of freedom of speech. Now he is dangerously close to being able to force his beliefs on the rest of us.
Lloyd’s distaste for the First Amendment is further explained in his 2007 study for the Center for American Progress titled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” which details his scheme for using radio station licensing rule-changes to suspend the forces of the free market and bring political balance to the airwaves.
By limiting ownership of commercial radio and television stations Lloyd seeks to remedy the “problem” of having too much conservative and Christian programming. Commercial station owners who continue to meet the demands of the marketplace and thereby fail to comply with these new rules would be forced to pay a fee to support public broadcasting — all in the name of diversifying the message and the messenger.
Another alarming idea put forward by Lloyd comes from his work with the ironically named Free Press and its avowed Marxist founders. This organization seeks to reorganize the media market by simply eliminating advertiser-supported media altogether; abolishing traditional First Amendment protections for commercial speech; and imposing new taxes on consumer electronics in order to fund government-controlled media outlets.
While the FCC and its radical allies deny any effort to push for re-instituting the so-called Fairness Doctrine, it’s painfully obvious they hope to accomplish their goals through back door regulations.
This concept of developing a national policy that will help diversify media outlets is little more than a clever way to regulate speech the Obama administration doesn’t want to hear. The FCC is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist and they are doing it at the expense of the First Amendment. Stand up with me and fight to protect free speech and limit government intrusion in our lives by telling the FCC and Mr. Lloyd that the First Amendment doesn’t need their fixing.
Tim Scott, a Charleston Republican, represents District 117 in the S.C. House of Representatives.
