Paul raises several interesting points about broadcast decency. However, it is a mistake to think that the airwaves are “free”. Quite the opposite. The 1919 Radio Act effectively nationalized a growing market in the wake of World War I (national security) and a few high-profile maritime disasters. The theft was finalized by Hoover in 1927. Security trumped property rights and we’ve been dealing with federal control of the airwaves since. Without a market mechanism in place, the results are predictable. Limited choices and standards that meet the lowest common denominator (common to 5 unelected regulators in Washington and their interest in enforcement.)
Ayn Rand’s essay “The Property Status of Airwaves” is a quick read on the question of who “owns” the airwaves and is helpful in thinking about who ought to police the airwaves.
As to Paul’s analysis, I have one other quibble. He concludes,
“At the price government comes to us, I think it can do what it’s supposed to do and get out of what it’s not supposed to do.” I disagree. At any price, we should expect the public sector to exhibit tendencies toward growth and “doing what it’s not supposed to do.” For this reason we place checks on power and demand transparancy.
However, to the main point about invasive, nay pervasive, indecency I believe that Paul and I quite agree. I too
“believe that includes maintaining a civilized public domain where we don’t have to worry about children straying into salacious territory without protections.
