Cable television, never subject to the FCC’s rules, also started becoming popular around the same time the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. I would attribute the change in the tenor of political discussion more to decentralization (and more recently, democratization) of mass media, of which the FCC’s change was a symptom, not the cause.
I’m realizing I missed a golden opportunity to discuss my preferred solution: using Section 230-like legislation to regulate new media.
Specifically I’d ideally like some kind of jury system enacted in a government organization or some legally well defined procedure where for sufficiently popular media some representative sample of the public decides whehter their view was represented competently in the media being judged. You’d need a supermajority to pass, so something like 70% of people saying their view was represented.
Details would be flexible: jury size (I’d think about 100), what is sufficiently popular to be covered (I am thinking 1m Americans see it), the exact supermajority (70%-95% is within what I consider reasonable), the percentage of time devouted to each view (5%-25%, a program should be allowed to have a preference and not required to devout a plurality of time to other views), and ironing out what constitutes a topic (could be thrown to the jury if no reasonable standard can be agreed upon a priori).
If you’re willing to abandon any traditional understanding of freedom of speech/press, there are indeed many things you can do. The more standard approach of requiring an imprimatur through a board of censors (independent agency, government-appointed “nonpartisan experts”, etc.) would work fine as well. You just have to be clear that your problem isn’t the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, it’s the First Amendment[1].
The justification for the constitutionality of FCC regulation, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, relied on the scarcity of public airwaves that the government was granting an exclusive license to. Hard to argue that for the “new media” you want to control.
If you’re willing to abandon any traditional understanding of freedom of speech/press, there are indeed many things you can do.
This is pretty hyperbolic considering we are discussing the history of similar regulation as well as the fact that current Section 230 regulation does in some ways limit free speech.
Beyond that there would be nothing forbidden by the regulation. Anyone can express any opinion. They just can’t capture a large audience and keep them away from points of disagreement in an echo chamber.
Cable companies in particular were ruled as subject to being forced to carry content. Public access stations were challenged by cable companies specifically on First Amendment grounds and SCOTUS ruled that that forcing the companies to carry this content alongside their other content was not a First Amendment violation so long as it did not interfere with their ability to broadcast their other content. This is a very similar situation.
In Turner II, 520 U.S. 180 (1997), the Supreme Court held that must-carry rules for cable television companies were not restrictions of their free speech rights because the U.S. government had a compelling interest in enabling the distribution of media content from multiple sources and in preserving local television.
Cable television, never subject to the FCC’s rules, also started becoming popular around the same time the Fairness Doctrine was abolished. I would attribute the change in the tenor of political discussion more to decentralization (and more recently, democratization) of mass media, of which the FCC’s change was a symptom, not the cause.
I’m realizing I missed a golden opportunity to discuss my preferred solution: using Section 230-like legislation to regulate new media.
Specifically I’d ideally like some kind of jury system enacted in a government organization or some legally well defined procedure where for sufficiently popular media some representative sample of the public decides whehter their view was represented competently in the media being judged. You’d need a supermajority to pass, so something like 70% of people saying their view was represented.
Details would be flexible: jury size (I’d think about 100), what is sufficiently popular to be covered (I am thinking 1m Americans see it), the exact supermajority (70%-95% is within what I consider reasonable), the percentage of time devouted to each view (5%-25%, a program should be allowed to have a preference and not required to devout a plurality of time to other views), and ironing out what constitutes a topic (could be thrown to the jury if no reasonable standard can be agreed upon a priori).
If you’re willing to abandon any traditional understanding of freedom of speech/press, there are indeed many things you can do. The more standard approach of requiring an imprimatur through a board of censors (independent agency, government-appointed “nonpartisan experts”, etc.) would work fine as well. You just have to be clear that your problem isn’t the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, it’s the First Amendment[1].
The justification for the constitutionality of FCC regulation, in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, relied on the scarcity of public airwaves that the government was granting an exclusive license to. Hard to argue that for the “new media” you want to control.
This is pretty hyperbolic considering we are discussing the history of similar regulation as well as the fact that current Section 230 regulation does in some ways limit free speech.
Beyond that there would be nothing forbidden by the regulation. Anyone can express any opinion. They just can’t capture a large audience and keep them away from points of disagreement in an echo chamber.
Cable companies in particular were ruled as subject to being forced to carry content. Public access stations were challenged by cable companies specifically on First Amendment grounds and SCOTUS ruled that that forcing the companies to carry this content alongside their other content was not a First Amendment violation so long as it did not interfere with their ability to broadcast their other content. This is a very similar situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_Inc._v._FCC