In 1927 the Federal Radio Act established the Federal Radio Commission, which would later be re-branded as the Federal Communications Commission. It was designed to let people broadcast “in the public interest” by issuing out temporary licenses to broadcasters. The government claims that the seizure of the radio spectrum was necessary, in order to eliminate the chaos that would ensue when broadcasters could pick any frequency, location, and schedule they wanted. But at the same time we relinquished control of the spectrum to the government, we also relinquished a few of our constitutional rights. Among these rights are the freedom of speech/press and the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In 1931 Mr. Baker, a man who owned a broadcasting station in Iowa, was denied the renewal of his broadcasting license because of his public attacks on the “persons and institutions” he did not like. The FCC explained their reason behind this:

Though we may not censor, it is our duty to see that broadcasting licenses do not afford mere personal organs, and also to see that a standard of refinement fitting our day and generation is maintained. (qtd. in Caldwell)

Here, the FCC is saying that they cannot censor, but that it is their duty to see that content goes through a filter, or a “standard of refinement”. Who defines this standard, and what are the requirements one must fulfill to meet it? It is the FCC’s “standard” that they can twist to fit any situation they wish to have power over. This standard is in direct conflict with the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment gives us the right of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is extremely important in society. It allows us to freely share any ideas or opinions we may have. We can listen to the ideas and opinions of others and, through our own judgement, accept the ones that appeal to us, while being able to reject the ones that do not. Ultimately, we make choices and grow based on information we have assimilated. What gives the FCC the right to limit our source of ideas and opinions that we can pull from, and in doing so, also effect our choices we make? Mr. Baker was a citizen just like the rest of us, and therefore should have been granted the right to express himself freely. The FCC seems to think otherwise.

Another restriction placed on freedom of speech was the establishment of the Mayflower Doctrine in 1940. This Mayflower Doctrine restricted broadcasters from expressing political opinions (Kovarik). One example of the Mayflower Doctrine at work is shown in dealing with a Boston station promoting certain candidates for election. Robert Coase explains the situation:

A Boston station had broadcast editorials urging the election of certain candidates for public office and expressing views on controversial questions. The Commission criticized the station for doing this and renewed its license only after receiving assurances that the station would no longer broadcast editorials. (Coase 9–10)

That station had their right of freedom of speech/press and should have been able to deliver messages to those tuned in to their frequency without any problem. They were just expressing their thoughts for others to hear. Though, in their course of action, they caught the FCC’s attention, and not in a good way. In their determination to constrict the flow of free thoughts and ideas, the FCC made sure to keep this station quiet. As the FCC silences broadcasters who don’t comply with their wishes, other licensed broadcasters become afraid that they too will be thrown off the air if they step out of line. In this way, the FCC can control and manipulate stations into delivering content they want the public to hear, or not hear.

In another case, a broadcaster by the name of Edward Lamb was denied renewal of his license because he was accused of having Communist associations. Lamb denied this and fought against the FCC for the renewal of his license. Eventually, the FCC did grant him renewal but they reasoned that they had the right to “inquire into past associations, activities, and beliefs” (Coase 11). Inquiring into a person’s “past associations, activities, and beliefs” carries a lot more weight with it than it sounds. They were able to search through Lamb’s life in order to find what they wanted. Clearly, a commission who’s main task is to regulate radio waves has no right to investigate into this man’s life. With no proof that Lamb was engaged an any communist activity, the FCC was able to demand information about his life and threaten to keep him off the air. Just because the FCC suspects somebody might be engaging in suspicious activity doesn’t give them the right to invade a person’s private life. The fourth amendment, which states that we have the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, should protect citizens in situations like Lamb’s.

As evidenced by history, an organization whose soul purpose was to be a guardian over the radio spectrum has become much more than that. They have become a restriction on our ability to hear what others have to say. They have become a tool that can manipulate the press into broadcasting their definition of the “public interest”. They have even become a threat to our privacy, having searched into a person’s private life. Are these things an organization would do if they had our best interest in mind? Absolutely not. These are examples of selfishness and corruption. What is there that can justify the denial of our basic rights? There is nothing that can justify the wrong. You can make what is wrong seem like it is helpful, or even rationalize that it is necessary, but in the end what is wrong will remain what it has always been. Wrong.