I get paid to defend unpopular speech. And, I’m the first to jump at the slightest hint of government censorship or coercion in the free market of ideas, as our recent comments critical of the IRS’s plans to regulate non-partisan political speech will attest.
But many conservatives are wrongly invoking the First Amendment to slam a survey of various media outlets, administered by the Federal Communications Commission, which is intended to collect information to help the FCC identify “critical information needs” in American communities. The survey’s findings will be central in efforts to maintain competition among newsrooms and protect viewpoint diversity, both crucial First Amendment values. (I’d also note that this is a case where the FCC is affirmatively trying to get a sense of the market before regulating, also a good move for speech.)
Complaints range. Some, like FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, call it a latter-day “fairness doctrine,” the very old rule at the FCC that broadcast licensees had to cover and present both sides of controversial issues. Others have gone much further, going so far as to accuse the FCC of thought policing. As much as I’d like to join another strange bedfellows First Amendment alliance, both concerns are seriously overwrought.
Let me start with the fairness doctrine. The FCC implemented the rule in 1949, in the very early years of television. It was, in fact, the second year of the CBS Evening News, which pioneered the use of the now standard regular anchor. Market dynamics were much different. It was an age of extreme concentration in the fledgling television industry, and similar problems in radio.
As a result, the FCC implemented a policy with two prongs. One, licensees had to try and cover controversial public issues. Two, they had to present competing perspectives (though not necessarily on an equal footing). To be sure, the doctrine served an admirable purpose – avoiding monopolization of the airwaves by the supporters on one side of an important issue. Nevertheless, violations of the doctrine were backed up by a big stick: license revocation.
This is not that.
The FCC’s current plan is a confidential, anonymous survey of station managers, news editors, line reporters and others about whether the people who work in the newsroom feel that they are serving their market communities effectively. There is no mention, whatsoever, of any potential consequence for refusing to answer or for giving a particular answer. Indeed, the anonymity of the survey and disaggregation of the results guarantee that no respondent will face any retaliation for any response, and the survey will be conducted by an independent contractor to preserve that anonymity.
The thought police argument is more easily disposed of. The FCC does literally police thought by levying fines for broadcasters who air sexual, scatological or profane material, which, ironically, many of the conservatives calling foul here actually support. Again, this is not that. There is no enforcement threat. And there is nothing obvious on the face of the survey that will have a coercive effect on the content of the news.
Concededly, it’s certainly true that government laws and regulations seeking “voluntary” cooperation can censor or chill speech. But those cases of indirect coercion are relatively clear.
For instance, in one of the primary Supreme Court cases on the question, Bantam Books, a Rhode Island state commission on obscenity would regularly send notices to booksellers. The notices would ask the merchant’s “cooperation” in removing books that the commission had adjudged obscene, and noted, importantly, that the commission was duty-bound to report the merchant to the authorities for prosecution if they continued to sell the material at issue.
Similarly, we’ve strongly inveighed against the use of “soft” power by the government, most notably in the context of “voluntary” rating systems by the entertainment industry. There lawmakers ominously say: police yourself, or we’ll do it for you. Government can’t force voluntary cooperation to achieve a result that it wouldn’t be able to constitutionally achieve directly.
In any event, I do appreciate the sensitivity of a couple of the questions in the survey, which have since been removed at the direction of Chairman Wheeler. But, with the First Amendment, as important as it is to be vigilant, it’s also important to resist crying wolf. Too many are unfortunately doing so here.
Updated: Shortly after this post went up, the FCC announced that it wouldn't be surveying station owners, managers or reporters at all. The analysis above, however, still stands. While even indirect government coercion can offend the First Amendment, absent any coercion, the government is free to collect information to inform policy making (and does so all the time).
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.