Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age
By Adam Thierer*
O
n November 4th, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral Twilight Zone in which identical words and images are being
arguments in the potentially historic free speech case regulated in completely different ways depending on the mode
of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Televi- of transmission. Leading media law scholars have noted that
sion Stations, Inc. This case, which originated in the Second a regulator viewing the same program on six different screens
Circuit Court of Appeals, deals with the FCC’s new policy in the same room would not be able to determine the regula-
for “fleeting expletives” on broadcast television. The FCC lost tory treatment of each screen until they determine how the
and appealed to the Supreme Court. By contrast, the so-called signal had been transmitted to each one.2 That is because, as
“Janet Jackson case”—CBS v. FCC—was heard in the Third the authors of another communications law book note, “The
Circuit Court of Appeals. The FCC also lost that case and has central problem is that communications law has always been
also petitioned the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s based on different rules for different media” and “different levels
ruling. of First Amendment protection. Unfortunately, this no longer
These two cases reflect an old and odd tension in American reflects technological reality.”3 And as Randolph May noted in
media policy and First Amendment jurisprudence. Words and Engage last October, classifying services and determining free
images presented over one medium—in this case broadcast speech rights based on technical characteristics or functional
television—are regulated differently than when transmitted features—what he calls “techno-functional constructs”—no
through any other media platform (such as newspapers, cable longer makes practical sense or is legally justifiable.4
TV, DVDs, or the Internet). Various rationales have been put Indeed, this current distribution channel-based legal ar-
forward in support of this asymmetrical regulatory standard. rangement will grow increasing unsustainable as more and more
Those rationales have always been weak, however. Worse yet, media content migrates to unregulated platforms and as media
they have opened the door to an array of other regulatory she- platforms and technologies converge. The rise of “convergence
nanigans, such as the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and many culture” will be the undoing of the rationales that have tradition-
other media marketplace restrictions.1 ally been offered in defense of regulating broadcast spectrum
Whatever sense this arrangement made in the past, tech- and speech differently than all other platforms.5 Those three
nological and marketplace developments are now calling into rationales are: (1) Scarcity; (2) Public ownership / licensing;
question the wisdom and efficacy of the traditional broadcast and (3) “Pervasiveness.” Scarcity and public ownership will be
industry regulatory paradigm. This article will explore both discussed only briefly since the pervasiveness rationale is at the
the old and new rationales for differential First Amendment heart of most modern battles over speech regulation, as is the
treatment of broadcast television and radio operators and con- case in FCC v. Fox and CBS v. FCC.
clude that those rationales: (1) have never been justified, and II. Scarcity
(2) cannot, and should not, survive in our new era of media
abundance and technological convergence. Spectrum “scarcity” has long been held out as the sine qua
non for broadcast radio and television regulation in America.
I. Process vs. Substance: Which Will the Court Address? Generally speaking, the scarcity rationale for regulation states
The Second and Third Circuit cases have been preoc- that because more people want spectrum licenses than are avail-
cupied with procedural issues, the Administrative Procedures able, government can and should impose special obligations on
Act (APA) in particular. To varying degrees, both the FCC and those who possess such licenses.
the broadcast industry plaintiffs have been dancing around the Spectrum scarcity was used to justify the broadcast licens-
substantive First Amendment issues at stake. The broadcasters ing scheme enshrined in the Radio Act of 1927 and Com-
aim to prove that the FCC went too far, too fast in expanding munications Act of 1934. Supreme Court decisions such as
broadcast indecency regulations and fines to cover “fleeting NBC v. United States (1943)6 and Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v.
expletives” (FCC v. Fox) and fleeting images (CBS v. FCC). The FCC (1969)7 then made the scarcity rationale sacrosanct, and
FCC says it was justified in taking action in those cases and legitimized comprehensive government regulation of broadcast-
that the courts should defer to its judgment. ers in the process.
The Supreme Court may resolve these cases on those While scarcity is the primary rationale for regulation of
narrow procedural grounds and punt the substantive First the broadcast spectrum and corresponding content controls, it
Amendment issues to another day. But the days of punting is a very weak one. Even if spectrum is scarce, that fact hardly
fundamental issues down the road will soon come to an end. makes the case for government control. Every natural resource
The First Amendment—at least as the FCC and the courts is inherently scarce in some sense. For example, there is only
read it today—is a house divided; a veritable jurisprudential so much coal, timber, or oil on the planet, but that does not
...................................................................... mean government should own or license those resources. In the
* Adam Thierer is a senior fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation 1986 D.C. Circuit case Telecommunication Research & Action
and the director of its Center for Digital Media Freedom. He is the author Center v. FCC, the case that overturned the FCC’s “Fairness
of Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Doctrine,” then-Judge Robert Bork argued that, “All economic
Methods (The Progress & Freedom Foundation, 2009), and the co-author goods are scarce… Since scarcity is a universal fact, it can hardly
with Brian Anderson of A Manifesto for Media Freedom (Encounter explain regulation in one context and not another. The attempt
Books, 2008).