When government regulation of the content of broadcasts began in 1927, the supposed justification was the scarcity of radio spectrum. In 1928 and 1929, when Republicans ran Washington, a
Somehow I always assumed that this monstrous offense against freedom of speech was a Democrat creation, but no. GOP Presidents Coolidge and Hoover presided over its birth and initial use.
This is a perfect example of what I have often referred to as “the hammer of the state.” If you turn the state into a powerful hammer, anybody who controls it will try to use it.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
The Democrats didn’t invent it: they just perfected its abuse.
But your point is completely valid. Using the “Fair Deal” machine to stop Communists: quite valid. Using the same machine to stop ALL dissent: the regrettable consequence.
Both the “public ownership” and “scarcity” justifications were problematical even in the 1920’s and are even more so today. These need to be challenged root and branch rather than trying to counter each new censorship trick. The 1984-ishly named “Fairness Doctrine” is passe’. The new attack goes under the guise “Localization” or some such.
Re the discussion of what we can learn from the Left in order to rebuild conservatism. One such lesson is that the Left used well-financed NGO’s to focus on and push narrow agenda items at basic levels. Here’s a good candidate for such treatment.
I never bought the scarcity argument either. As Mark Twain pointed out, the only thing they are not making more of is land, so there is a “scarcity” of land and we should let the government dole it out fairly.
I’m sure Blago would have been fair about it.
They need to auction off the governments interest in the communications spectrum (with perhaps retention of the parts the military uses), and close the doors on the FCC. Any laws regulating content would have to pass 1st Amendment muster.
Ok, so I can dream