FCC Gaining Too Much Power

Among the consequences of the now-infamous Janet Jackson flap at the Super Bowl is the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, passed overwhelming by Congress. The act aims to clean up the filth that has been clogging our airwaves in recent years by increasing the amount of money the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can fine stations from $27,500 to $500,000. The first target of the souped up FCC, as you probably know, is shock jock Howard Stern.

I am not a fan of Howard Stern. I never listened to his radio show, but I have seen him a few times on television. I found him to be annoying and disgusting. Porn stars and strippers may improve ratings, but they add nothing to the public discourse. From graphic discussions of sexual and bodily functions, most of his words and deeds are indefensible. Still, we would all do well to remember Voltaire's famous declaration, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Giving the FCC more power should raise alarm among all of us. Many of us do not like Stern, and would like to see him removed from the airwaves. That's fine. If you strongly feel this way, I have some suggestions for you. Organize boycotts. March in protest. Hit Stern and his sponsors where it hurts most, in the wallet. Use methods similar to those utilized to stop the CBS hatchet job of The Reagans last year. If that doesn't work, just change the channel! But do not use the power of government to silence him, or anyone else. It sets far too dangerous a precedent that might just come back to bite us all someday.

If Howard Stern can be silenced, why not Rush Limbaugh? Or Jimmy Kimmel? Or Hallerin Hill? All these talk show hosts could be considered offensive by some. What about certain types of music, or certain news items? Are you really comfortable giving this much power to the government? Do you trust the government to look out for you? If so, you definitely need a history lesson.

I'm not going to exaggerate and claim that our current situation resembles the Third Reich or Stalinist Russia. But it does merit our attention, and our close scrutiny. Free speech is one of our most basic rights, and any infringement upon it should raise suspicion. Some may argue that freedom of speech does not guarantee a right to be heard. That is correct, but the clear intention behind the First Amendment is to protect speech from being suppressed by the government. If punishing stations for airing something the government does not approve of isn't suppression, I don't know what is.

The First Amendment does not mention the broadcast media because it did not exist at the time of our nation's founding. There is little doubt, however, that had there been radio and television at the time of the Constitutional Convention, they would have been protected by the Constitution, just as newspapers are. Students of history understand this.

Criticism of the FCC is not new. In 1964, Ayn Rand warned, "When censorship of radio and television becomes fully accepted, as a fait accompli, it will not be long before all the other media - books, magazines, newspapers, lectures - follow suit, unobtrusively, unofficially, and by the same method: overtly, in the name of the 'public interest'; covertly, for fear of government reprisals." So we now see the FCC "protecting us" following the Janet Jackson flap, and Clear Channel dropping Stern for fear of government reprisals. Rand's words were prophetic.

Do we really need the government deciding what is decent and what isn't? Shouldn't that be up to us as individuals to decide? I may not like Howard Stern, but he obviously has an audience. And the government is supposed to represent his audience just as much as it represents me. This is only one reason why we should always be dubious of anything the government does in the "public interest" (a catchy phrase used to justify countless atrocities throughout history).

I have no doubt that most of the Congressmen who voted for the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act were well meaning. Unfortunately, the old adage about the road to hell being paved with good intentions is especially true when applied to the government. Always jealously guard your freedom of speech, because once that right is gone, all others will follow.

Consider that the next time you're driving home from class listening to 100.3, 94.3, or 107.7.

- John Brown is a senior in political science and history at the University of Tennessee @ Knoxville. Contact him at johnnyb325@aol.com, or visit www.johnnorrisbrown.com. This column originally appeared in the April 15, 2004 edition of The Daily Beacon, available here.