Aw shit, here we go again. Yes, this is going to be yet another libertarian rant. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an over-funded arm of Uncle Sam that is run by an unelected official. The organization, in its current form, has far too much power over content on the airways and hence it gives the government way more authority than they need. This archaic organization needs a colossal overhaul. I expect more than a few federal pensioners to start sharpening their pitchforks.
However, I’d like to state one caveat; the FCC should stay. Yes, you read that right and yes, I’m serious, the FCC does have a role to play. The FCC is responsible for ensuring that electronic devices involved in communication can perform their intended purpose. There are technical aspects involved in broadcasting messages over long distances, and everyone being on the same page does indeed make civilized life possible (shout out to Mike Rowe!) for all of us. Fret not, I’m not here to fire any electrical engineers or physicists currently on the payroll; we need them just as much as they need those sweet, juicy Bald Eagle pensions.
With that said, where the FCC fails us all is in the realm of censorship. Currently the FCC is the agency that is over-staffed with lackeys ensuring that comedians aren’t able to act like George Carlin while they’re on the air. Against my normal slant, let’s assume that this wasn’t an intentional power grab and the current government censorship apparatus we have is purely the result of good-natured policy (are you laughing yet?).
Often times, the biggest argument for allowing the federal bureaucrats to encroach on our word choice is well, what about the kids? This rhetorical question is often used in bad faith, as the speaker is often just using that line as a way of ending the conversation instead of continuing it. Since I’m feeling feisty today (as is most days when I’m writing an article), I’ll happily take on this question. Foul language exists, whether we want it too or not. Despite the best efforts of the nanny-state, kids are still picking up swear words; whether it be from the cool kids on the playground or Dad yelling at the referee on TV during Sunday afternoons. Therefore, we are wasting money policing a lost cause.
“Well Dan, what about violent programming? Are you saying the FCC shouldn’t regulate that either?”, a disgruntled reader will eventually ask. The FCC has no business regulating that either. Much in the same vein as the previous paragraph, violence exists in the world whether we want it too or not. We teach the youth about violence in history class (though not thoroughly enough), so the government apparently wants the youth to know about violence without seeing it? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see how ridiculous that notion is. A far better approach would be to allow the full airing of the gore and carnage from war-related broadcasts on the news; the sight of blown-off limbs, third-degree burns, or a body riddled with bullet holes would serve as a great visual medium that needless violence is bad. “Well Dan, that could be traumatizing to my precious whiddle angel!” is a response that some Karen will throw at me, blissfully unaware of the inherent privilege that reply carries. Your kids, assumingly living in a safe and developed Western nation being traumatized by seeing violence on TV and the news is incredibly tone-deaf when we think about the youths who live in the war-torn regions being depicted. Furthermore, we wouldn’t even have to leave the United States to see wonton levels of violence, just visit Memphis or Detroit, the kids there already see violence on a routine basis, so we are doing them no favors by censoring it.
All right, I’m done assuming good intent in regards to Drunk Uncle Sam. The government has shown time and again that the education and protection of our youth has not been the priority. After all, if it was, then we would let the nation’s youth margin trade as the experience would serve as a valuable learning opportunity regardless of the outcome.
Big Daddy government’s legal leeway to even police the airways isn’t even an iron-clad one either. The FCC vs Pacifica Supreme Court case in 1978 laid the groundwork for the FCC to overreach and censor indecent content, though very little is done to list the criteria of what is indecent. To give credit where it is due (barf), the over-staffed agency has published an incredibly vague definition as to what they deem as rule-breaking. Generally speaking, giving the U.S. government a wide berth to decide what is-and isn’t-okay has historically not ended well. Unsurprisingly, the FCC has been wildly inconsistent with how they’ve applied the fines; seriously, does Roger Goodell run this place? Given that the FCC’s near-limitless power was granted only by a single Supreme Court decision (by the narrowest of margins, mind you), their peerless power can come crumbling down the moment the Supreme Court chooses to reverse course and buck precedent to do so. Given that there is a clear majority of radicalized-right judges on the court, this is certainly possible. Don’t believe me? Ask your friendly-neighborhood pro-choice advocate or a New York-based gun control activist how the bank on the Supreme Court not changing on a whim strategy has worked out for them.
“Alright Dan, you’ve spilled quite a bit of ink complaining about the FCC, do you have any solutions?” well, I’m glad you asked! Admittedly, my strategy relies on the radicalized Supreme Court reversing it’s 1978 decision in a new case, though as discussed before, that isn’t as wild of an idea as it seems. “Dan, give me something actionable, and make it spicy!” a reader will protest. First, we need to lay off the non-technical workforce of the agency, and reduce the scope of the remaining employee’s responsibilities. The FCC should have no function other than ensuring our communicative devices work properly. Censoring indecent (to them) content should be done away with entirely. In lieu of mass layoffs that would save the tax payer millions of dollars, we could alternatively just pressure the agency to stop enforcing frivolous ideals. Since the DEA has softened their stance on weed considerably, a federal agency admitting that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze is hardly groundbreaking. Next, we can apply pressure to our elected officials (or better yet, hire lobbyists) to cut the FCC’s funding drastically. We can then change the leadership and culture of the FCC itself by either A.) appointing only physicists and engineers to run the agency or B.) making the head of the agency a publicly-elected position. For those that think option A is radical, the head of the CDC is a medical doctor by trade, ditto for the FDA, so having technical agencies run by experts is not a bad idea (it’s sad that I even have to write that). Anyone who opposes option B is appallingly anti-Democracy and dislikes transparency.
Regulating airways is akin to regulating culture…
Home Page 