Gag Me With a Law

Brian C. Anderson, editor of City Journal, and Adam D. Thierer, senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, offer a brief and timely defense of the First Amendment. Explaining what different regulatory proposals mean for free speech and freedom of the press, they demand that lawmakers and government officials not interfere with the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The Fairness Doctrine–a relic of the 1940s finally put to pasture in the 1980s–once allowed the FCC to force radio and TV stations to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. The effect, of course, was to discourage political discourse on the airwaves. Now it is making a comeback. Prominent senators–Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.)–have expressed support for it, and several Democratic members of the House–including Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Louise Slaughter and Maurice Hinchey, both of New York–have proposed bills to reinstate it.

In the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine, “network neutrality” is a euphemism for regulation aimed at Internet service providers. Despite the nice alliterative (and Orwellian) term proponents have given it, network neutrality is “a recipe for technological stasis,” say Anderson and Thierer. Net neutrality advocates–Hillary Clinton being one of the most prominent–want to regulate the way private network operators do business and price bandwidth use, preventing broadband firms from offering “ultra-fast delivery for sites or users willing to pay extra, just as FedEx accelerates delivery of packages for a fee.”

This leveling of the playing field would limit market competition and amount to “infrastructure socialism,” the authors believe. They also caution that regulation of for-profit network companies could quickly lead to proposals for a “Web Fairness Doctrine” or oversight of the “neutrality” of other for-profits, such as search engines.

In addition to regulatory proposals for specific types of media, Anderson and Thierer highlight campaign finance rules, “one of the biggest dangers to media freedom.” They examine, in particular, the McCain-Feingold Act, which “made it a felony for corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups, and labor unions to run ads that .  .  .name or show .  .  . members of Congress within sixty days of a federal election.” Further campaign finance “reforms” have targeted broadcasters and the blogosphere.

With the election around the corner, how a new president and Congress will approach regulating media is a pressing concern: “Should a Democrat take the White House .  .  . an array of new media regulations would be almost certain,” the authors caution. Barack Obama has already promised to “clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum,” and “strongly supports the principle of network neutrality.” But Anderson and Thierer are quick to point out that John McCain is no particular champion of the First Amendment, considering his role in McCain-Feingold and his statement two years ago that he “would rather have a clean government than one where, quote, First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt.”

This timely volume laments that the “language of ‘fairness’ is beguiling” and deftly challenges the idea that it is the government’s responsibility to oversee Americans’ media consumption. The authors assert that “[i]n a media cornucopia, freedom of choice inevitably yields media inequality.” It was (and still would be) unconstitutional to force media outlets to offer multiple viewpoints, but Anderson and Thierer also point out that the arguments in favor of “fairness” are no longer valid because of the vast number of websites, newspapers, television channels, and radio stations from which people can choose.

This small detail does not stop those “motivated by the naked desire for political control, a reactionary fear of the new, or genuine if misguided views on equality and fairness in the media” from attempting to limit media freedom. The strongest voices supporting media regulation are those on the left, but ostensibly “conservative” organizations–Parents Television Council and Christian Coalition of America, for instance–are also calling for neutrality regulation. Given the bipartisan nature of these ill-conceived efforts to limit the First Amendment, readers will benefit greatly from A Manifesto for Media Freedom‘s clear, succinct explanations of the various regulatory proposals, and what they would mean for media freedom and free speech in America.

Christy Hall Robinson is an associate editor at the American Enterprise Institute.