Radio Speech Is Not Free Speech

On August 11, 2009, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in a unanimous vote, became the first elected body in the United States to stand up to Hate Radio. Their resolution urges "the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to conduct a comprehensive investigation on hate speech in the media, allowing public participation via public hearings, and asks the NTIA to update its 1993 report on the Role of Telecommunications in Hate Crimes."

For two years, San Francisco's Hispanic/Latino Anti-Defamation Coalition has been trying to get some traction on this issue. They've staged rallies against Michael Savage; worked with the Media Alliance, California Common Cause and Broadcast Blues to protest hate radio; and supported the National Hispanic Media Coalition's campaign to convince the FCC and NTIA to act. But HLADC leader Aurora Grajedas saw she could better effect national change by working with her own city's board of supervisors. Acting locally is a good lesson for all activists.

Still, there is resistance to any such study, as opponents charge these groups are trying to shut down the First Amendment. But let us be clear, Radio Speech is not Free Speech. I will stand by Glenn Beck's right to stand on the street corner and say illegal immigrants should be made into a new fuel called "Mexinol." I may not like it, but I stand by his right to say it. But there is a difference between shouting on the street corner and broadcasting all over the country.

Broadcasting pioneers witnessed the power of propaganda with radio Tokyo Rose, so they worked with government on two key broadcast regulations. First, to qualify for a license to broadcast on the public airwaves, stations had to serve the public interest, which became defined as local news, political debates, equal time, and a rule that said no personal attacks. Second, one person could own just 6 radio stations, nationwide. There were a lot of "street corners" in radio.

Today there are almost none. The 1996 Telecommunications Act changed the law so one person can own unlimited numbers of radio stations nationwide, and up to eight in a single town. It means a handful of businessmen now decide what we all get to hear on our local radio dials. They decide which few musicians get airplay; even Bruce Springsteen can't stand up to Clear Channel (see that story www.twitter.com/sueblueswilson

Comments

[steppenwolfsayshi]

I think the root of the problem here is that no one understands how propaganda works, so no one knows if the measures proposed would worked. The measures of breaking up stations and requiring equal time for news and public discourse were intended to fight fascist propaganda, which were ideas coming from the outside.

Today, you have a different problem: propaganda which is being created from within and I would say that no one really understands how that happens or how best to stop it. I don't think the proposed fixes would work because the problem is deeper. Campaign finance reform, lack of PR regulations, charities acting as PACS, corporate personhood all are the real root.

[Filosofe]

Now what was wrong with that?

[Filosofe]

They do not give us what we want. They give us what they want. If they decided Shakespeare and ballet were to be the new thing, then Shakespeare and ballet would be the new thing and Joe Sixpack would be buying tutus. Free speech? Don't make me laugh.

[ClimateChange]

All I forgot to add, the likes of Glenn are always entertainers first-they are not in the business to inform-which is a shame, because some people believe in what they say and buy into it as news.

I read 2/3 papers online and 3 abroad. I can tell fact from fiction.

[ClimateChange]

I am an open minded person who votes for the candidate with the best ideals. I am very tolerant of other cultures, gender orientation, etc. I don't think we should deny people the ability to speak their minds. Even if it is offensive and downright disgusting, Free Speech should be protected. It is a slippery-slop if we try to can Free Speach, Chavez did just that. Are we going to start acting like him?

The Fairness Act or any other law is just going to make lawyers richer. In our today's society how to you control hate? How do you control information flow?

You don't have to listen to Glenn Beck or Rush, there are plenty of liberals who say horrible things. As much as I like Van Jones, he has had his fare share of hate speech. You can always turn-it-off!

[abluevoice]

There is a simple solution to this unequal free speech that allows a minority party with failed policies and hate talk attacks to dominate the political debate in this country, and that is the return of the Fairness Doctrine. That way the uninformed political zombies that take their marching and voting orders from Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and Savage etc. would at least be exposed to the other side of Republican lies.

If the Fairness Doctrine isn't returned then Democrats need to get off their gloating asses and organize and threaten to boycott the supposedly political national advertisers that sponsor these hate and failure ridio pimps, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Savage and all their clones. This taste of the free market going after their advertisers would shut them up quickly.

[Royucker]

Radio speech is not free speech?
It never ceases to amaze me how you leftist love to talk about freedom and fairness, that is until something does not go your way or you find that you leftist views are not quite as popular as you think they should be. And of course, it is never because you or your ideas are wrong, it must be some right wing conspiracy, or maybe you are just talking over the head of all those simpletons out there that you know better than.
Look lady, if you want to hear hate speech, tune into Progressive radio. The name Stephanie Miller comes to mind anytime the phrase hate speech comes up. Personally, I think she is a great waste of skin but even this conservative would fight for her right to put a show out there and if ratings keep it on the air, then that means there are plenty of left wing hate mongers that want too listen to her crap. So be it.
I will suggest that you liberals may want to leave well enough alone however as there is a great danger in this for you. If the law prescribes that fairness must be adhered to on the public airways, NBC CBSS and ABC are in deep trouble. The left gets alot push from the big three. They just helped a nobody, with no experience, that had never run anything in his life becomes President in some perverted episode of American idol.

[Anna65]

Radio speech isn't free? lol. That's because the liberals have noone to challenge Rush. POOOOOOOOOOR Babies, suck it up. LOLOLOLOL.­Yahoo!

[pkwinsomee]

My advanced apologies for the inundation of rhetorical questions, but I think they make my points self-evidently.

Whether speaking on it or acting on it, hate will always exist.

Trying to restrict the speech of any one in any time in any form is THE road to tyranny. It doesn't lead to equality, nor does it lead to less hate between people. Restriction of speech has the ability of making people feel better, temporarily, for now, but the last time I checked, the Constitution does not have a mandate for unhurt feelings, just a mandate against the government imposing laws against speech.

Who would you charge with the task of restricting speech? Would you have it be a right-wing reactionary who weaseled his way into public office after 2012?

Would you rather know where these people stand? Would you rather have a conduit for the daily contempt the average person feels for people different to them? Or would you like to act without these things, knowing all the time that under the surface, people feel these things but have no outlet for them? Would you like to have these emotions constantly bubbling below the surface, ready to be acted upon?

Ask yourself, which would be worse for the causes of social justice groups: the beautiful ability to defend themselves in public discourse against hateful bigots, or to never get the chance because the bigots aren't given the chance to speak?

(more after moderation­..)

[pkwinsomee]

Consider the scenario I presented: would you have the right-wing pull the plug on a free speaker because they weren't patriotic enough? Would that be alright, because the majority of the people agree that being strongly patriotic is a good standard for American broadcasters? Or do you begin to understand that being 'patriotic enough' is as an absurd standard as being 'hateless enough'? If you set up a ridiculous standard like that to begin with, you're opening the door for the tyranny of the majority. I'm sure if you polled Americans in 2001, massive majorities would agree with 'patriotic speech' being a far better standard for broadcasters than 'hateless speech,' and we on the left can see how patently absurd, and frankly terrifying, that sort of standard is.

Do you want freedom of speech being so subject to the winds of change and the whims of the extremely sheepish majority? Because that's exactly what you would be exposing it to if we start down this path.

"Radio speech is not free speech" from the left; "Print speech is not free speech" from the right. This distinction would become a terrifying specter if wielded by the wrong person. And in all honesty, there is no right person for this job.

Frankly, I'm not going to stand by and let my fellow leftists fire the first shot in a war that no one will win.

Whether speaking on it or acting on it, hate will always exist.

[MacGregor57]

Kind of interesting that the hubbub about Mr. Obama's speech should coincide with such an article as this. It may not be pertinent but it may at least warrant another run through the logic box.

And, I'll report you decide: Am I within my rights if I burn an American flag? I already know how I feel but it's another aspect of free speech to bounce off your existing attitudes to see if it runs up the old flagpole (pardon me).

[hippie chucker]

So, liberals start a liberal alternative in Air America, and it's an epic fail. Its founder is caught stealing money from a Hawaiian landscaper.

Solution-get the State to intervene!

Which is always the default position of statists, isn't it? Liberals already have a state run, taxpayer subsidized network on NPR anyway.

The idea that the State intervenes and forces public companies to comply with diversity standards (i.e. liberal viewpoints, but I repeat myself) is straight out of the totalitarian handbook. Ask yourself why Castro, Chavez both shut down opposition radio stations?

[pragmaticdallasite]

How about a truth standard then? Can we make people on Hate radio atleast have a disclaimer that they are not journalists and their facts haven't been verified?

[ClimateChange]

Agree with you, Truth standards? Who is the Truth holder here? Please, don't be so naive and believet that we hold the wand of knowledge here.

And nobody put a gun to your head and said: "You must listen to Glenn Becks venomous spills".

We're are still a free country-I hope-the more laws a society has, the less free it is.

[FreidaPeeple]

where in America, are people being FORCED to listen to AM Radio?

[MacGregor57]

Thank god, nowhere. Every channel across the band is just noise.

[abluevoice]

Nobody is forced to listen to AM radio, but the amount of exposure and what amounts to free Republican propaganda and advertisemenent on what is supposed to be the public airwaves is
un-democratic and harmful to uninformed listeners, and the country. For example in San Diego the 7th largest city in the country there are 4 local radio stations broadcasting Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Beck and all their clones, Hedgecock, Roberts, with their despicable hate filled attacks, uncontested lies, and hopes for the country's failure 24/7. When you combine this with the 4or 5 Am stations from Orange county and LA broadcasting the same hate and failure talk 24/7, one cannot listen to AM radio in Southern California without getting anything but Republican talking points. This is not free speech. This is a monoply for right wing and Republican lies and propaganda.
This is why a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine is critical for our Democracy to function and why it could lead us back to consensus politics instead of the failed, divide and conquer politics of the right.
I don't want to shut off the right; I just want to hear both sides of an issue. What is wrong with that?

[bfrank1971]

Speech is speech regardless of the medium. The Libs are pissed off because the public either rejects or turns off their brand of speech. Similar to walking through Sproul Plaza, you either stand, listen, engage or walk on by. The criminal factor is introduced when one group strolls over to silence the other group by physical intimidation or restraint. The First Amendment prohibits the government from passing any laws restricting speech. It is what makes the USA unique in the world. I did not agree with the left's depiction of the Bush Administration but did not want legislature to stop them from saying it. The main problem is the vague definition of 'hate' and if it even exists. Calling Bush 'dumb' , 'shrub' , 'murderer' or 'killer' is a form of 'hate' speech deemed unacceptable at my son's public school. Whenever I hear this argument from the left, they fail to mention ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and NPR which dominated the airwaves on television and radio since the technology was born until the advent of cable in the late 90s when Rush gained ground on AM radio and Fox News started in 96. The liberal viewpoint is aptly represented from numerically more stages, however, the ratings and advertising dollars reveal less are stopping by to listen. Maybe, they should just change their viewpoint if they want to attract listeners and make more money, otherwise, quit the useless complaining. It could get you cancelled.

[pragmaticdallasite]

Maybe they should drop all standards of journalistic integrity and begin sensationalism and playing to people's fears and hatreds? Yeah that'll get the ratings!

FYI everything to the left of your position doesn't make it "leftist" or "liberal", it just means you're the farthest to the right (and the farthest from reality).

[Leper]

>>...there is a difference between shouting on the street corner and broadcasting all over the country.

It's called "wattage".

[SgtLucifer]

Sue, thank you for mentioning Hate Radio and Michael (Weener) Savage in the same article. I wished you had done so in the same sentence. The man is a crackpot racist & hate monger who should be off the air.