Ken Ferree, former chief of the FCC’s media bureau and PFF’s recently retired president (now Board member), has penned another devastatingly witty piece slamming the FCC’s recently announced inquiry into “the future of media and information needs of communities in a digital age” as something that,
should make the stomachs of civil libertarians everywhere queasy. Of course the Public Notice of the inquiry is dressed up in all of the usual public interest language. The Commission purports to be interested in protecting good journalism, promoting a diversity of information sources, and expanding the opportunities for a vibrant debate of public issues. We have no reason to doubt the sincerity of those representations, or of the FCC’s claim that it will consider First Amendment concerns first and foremost as the inquiry proceeds.
The problem is that
the very act of initiating such an inquiry will chill protected speech; government inquiry into what is and is not working in the area of news, information, and media is itself an affront to the First Amendment. And it is no answer that the Commission has embarked on this journey with beneficent motives, it has no power to derogate from the protections of the First Amendment in the name of what one group of bureaucrats may think are important government interests.
Can there be any doubt but that any category of speakers that are even indirectly regulated by the FCC will be mindful of this new inquiry and will curb the nature of their conduct and communications in light of it? What great potential for mischief the FCC has spawned merely by initiating this little inquiry! Regulation by “raised eyebrow” has become a well-established tool for a number of federal agencies, including the FCC, but with this inquiry the Commission has taken the concept to a level heretofore unknown – this inquiry is
regulation by penetrating leer.
The rest of the piece is well worth reading. But of course, the FCC will continue on their merry way anyway presuming neither their their complete lack of jurisdiction nor the First Amendment prevents them from “merely asking questions”—as with asked open-ended questions about things like cloud computing, online privacy (a slightly different matter) and online content controls that don’t come anywhere near the agency’s jurisdiction. Adam and I will be filing comments on the “Empowering Parents” inquiry questioning this “questioning.”
http://blog.pff.org/archives/2010/02/a_chill_wind_blows.html
The Annenberg School at the University of Southern California recently released a paper by Geoffrey Cowan and David Westphal entitled, “Public Policy and Funding the News.” In it, Cowan and Westphal join the growing chorus of voices advocating a substantial role of government in propping up struggling media entities or investing in news production going forward.
I can’t say that I disagree with everything in the report, especially the contention that many traditional news-gathering institutions face serious challenges to their survival. But as I have noted here before, there are three big problems with recommendations to greatly expand the role of government in the media sector or journalistic profession as a solution:
- While public media & subsidies may have a role, that role should be tightly limited and focused on filling specific niches or unfilled needs within certain communities. Public subsidies should not be viewed as a replacement for traditional private media sources. Moreover, public subsidies will not begin to make up the shortfall from traditional private funding source, unless we plan on having Congress spend hundreds of billions of dollars (like the radical regulatory advocates at Free Press advocates) to subsidize news.
- If we do end up taking that path, it will raise profound fairness questions since it will leave taxpayers footing the bill for things they might not want or could find objectionable, even offensive. (Conservatives wouldn’t like funding Bill Moyers, and liberals wouldn’t be too keen on supporting Rush Limbaugh).
- Any plan to have government step up its role in supporting journalism will raise profound questions about press independence and threaten core First Amendment values. Putting journalists on the public dole is a serious threat to the integrity of the profession.
Continue reading →
There was a hearing today in the House Energy and Commerce Committee on “Reauthorization of the Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act,” which got into the sticky of issue of whether must carry mandates should be applied to satellite television (DBS) operators. My boss, Ken Ferree, president of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, testified in opposition to that notion. Here’s what he had to say about proposals that would require satellite operators to carry local broadcast TV stations from even the smallest markets:
Because Congress cannot repeal the laws of physics, there are only two ways in which a satellite company might comply with such a mandate: 1) it may add capacity (i.e., launch new satellites and build associated ground equipment), or 2) it may convert capacity currently used for other purposes to local television carriage in the most sparsely populated parts of the country. Neither approach makes economic sense. That is, these proposals, if they were to become law, would impose considerable costs on satellite operators while generating no appreciable revenue.
Continue reading →
Ken Ferree and I just filed an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit in what could be among the most important First Amendment cases involving economic regulation in years: Comcast’s challenge to the FCC’s cap on the maximum size of a cable operator’s nationwide subscriber-audience. While few may feel righteous indignation at limitations targeted at large corporations such as Comcast or Time Warner, the larger principle at stake here is deeply important: Will the First Amendment provide a meaningful check on what USC law professor Chris Yoo has called “architectural censorship” (i.e., so-called “structural” regulations that “have the unintended consequence of reducing the quantity, quality, and diversity of media content”).
In a nutshell, we argue that that:
- The provisions of the 1992 Cable Act authorizing the FCC to impose a “cable cap” are outdated in world of media abundance and vibrant platform competition.
- Because cable is no longer the unique “bottleneck” or “gatekeeper” that it was in 1992, these statutory provisions (not just the FCC’s 30% rule) must be subject to strict scrutiny under the First Amendment as a limitation on free speech.
- Because there are “less restrictive means” of ensuring cable operators do not impede the flow of video programming to consumers, the court should strike down these provisions.
- Even if the court upholds the statute, it should nonetheless strike down the cap issued by the FCC in December 2007 (30% of all Multichannel Video Programming (MVPD) subscribers as based on an outdated model of the video marketplace.
I encourage you to read our brief (below). I’ve provided a summary below, along with some additional commentary we just couldn’t cover under our 3500 word limit.
Strict Scrutiny. Yoo’s article Architectural Censorship and the FCC is essential reading for anyone who believes that government regulations on the size and shape of the “soapbox” can have huge effects on speech itself. Yoo argues that the First Amendment should check this kind of regulation–however “content-neutral” it might seem–under “strict scrutiny”, which requires that the government show that a regulation is the “least restrictive means” available for advancing a “compelling government interest.” But Yoo ultimately concludes (pp. 713-718, PDF pp. 45-50) that, under existing precedent, most “architectural censorship will be effectively insulated from meaningful judicial review.” Continue reading →
In late June, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opened a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding “Sponsorship Identification Rules and Embedded Advertising” (MB Docket No. 08-90). Basically, it’s an inquiry into the product placement and embedded advertising practices on television. Some at the FCC want such practices regulated.
PFF filed comments in the matter today. Ken Ferree and I argue that that FCC regulation of such advertising practices would be unnecessary and unwise. “If the Notice demonstrates anything,” we argue, “it is that a majority of the current Commissioners live in a world wholly alien and unfamiliar to most Americans; indeed, a world long forgotten if it ever existed.” We continue:
The Notice alludes menacingly to new, “subtle and sophisticated means” of commercial messaging, to “sneaky commercials” (quoting a senescent order topped with nearly fifty-years of dust) and to “vindicat[ing]” the policy goals of the Communications Act – as if the FCC must exact vengeance on those who would try – horror of horrors – to sell goods and services to the American public. The melodramatic tone of the Notice is intended, of course, to set the stage for the Commission’s latest effort to micromanage the free marketplace of ideas, i.e., the media. Only by portraying “embedded” advertising as something new and nefarious can the Commission hope to justify a new portfolio of intrusive and burdensome speech regulations in the name of preserving the “public’s right to know who is paying to air commercials or other program matter on broadcast television and radio and cable.”
And, as we make clear in the filing, we don’t buy the argument that the public are nothing more than mindless sheep:
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.