Excellent analysis of why, consistent with the First Amendment, the marketplace should regulate TV content, not the federal government. Writes Prof. David C. Kohler of Southwestern Law School: What’s going on here is an attempt by the FCC to expand its reach as a surrogate for various interest groups bent on protecting us (and our children) from ourselves. I characterize the situation this way because the simple fact is that the marketplace already provides ample tools for us to help ourselves. Anyone who wants to avoid offensive programs has a host of technological options available to limit what can be viewed on his or her television (not to mention, of course, the decidedly non-technology based option of just turning off the set). These options range from the V-Chip to sophisticated digital blocking devices offered by cable and satellite companies. Moreover, recent events involving Don Imus and Rupert Murdoch’s O.J. Simpson follies demonstrate what we all can do when we really don’t like something the mainstream media is doing—protest and prompt change. The problem is that for whatever reason most of us don’t take advantage of these tools, and the commission and its interest groups don’t like that. The content police want to supersede our own decision-making authority. They think they should, in effect, force us to do something we could do on our own, but haven’t, in order to protect our kids from something we have decided, for whatever reason, they don’t need protection from. Sound a little like Big Brother? Link: Let market set free speech limits - Daily Report.
Recent Comments