Free Speech, Free Choice & The Radio

Yesterday, just before the head of Clear Channel Communications went to testify before Congress, his company pulled the plug on their airing of The Howard Stern Show. This comes right on the heels of Clear Channel's firing of Bubba the Love Sponge. And now Rush Limbaugh is expressing concern about free speech on the radio. So what exactly is the deal here?

First off, let me be clear in stating that I seriously dislike Howard Stern. I've tried to listen to the show and found nothing redeeming about it. So I don't listen.

As for Rush, I don't listen to him either. His views are often in general concurrence with mine, but for some reason his show never really stirred any passions in me like Neal Boortz or Sean Hannity (on the radio, not TV). So I wouldn't exactly call Rush a favorite of mine either.

Now Rush is absolutely correct in his statement: "IT'S ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT [Free speech]. IT'S ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT."

Now as I understand it, the government is merely holding hearings into indecent material on the airwaves, á la Bubba the Love Sponge or possibly even Howard Stern. The FCC likely has some enforcement actions in the works, but even in the case of Bubba, the FCC did not make any decisions for Clear Channel.

Clear Channel decided to can Bubba. Clear Channel decided to pull Stern off their stations. The FCC action against the company did not require the Love Sponge's squeezing out. Congress did not even request that Stern be taken off the air. Clear Channel made those decisions of their own free will.

Now maybe they were influenced by the possibility of further government sanction. Maybe they were embarrassed to go before Congress with Stern on their stations talking about banging his girlfriend. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Bottom line is we don't know. Clear Channel may have made a conscious decision to clean up their company. I haven't heard any rumblings about them considering taking Boortz or Hannity off the air (or Michael Savage for that matter). Rather, I only see them concentrating on those particulars that are most likely to run afoul of free speech and to cross over in obscenity and indecency.

Rush is right that there are differing standards for TV and radio. And part of that probably does have something to do with the dominant ideology in each medium. But to trot out the slippery slope argument against federal involvement already seems a bit premature. There are laws on the books about broadcasting indecent materials, on both TV and the radio. The FCC is working on enforcing those laws in a very public manner right now. And I can't really say that the FCC is going about that enforcement in a biased manner, as they are still working on the CBS Super Bowl halftime debacle. The FCC enforcing existing laws is not heading down the slippery slope. To the contrary, it is an example of good governance by the executive branch of government as it upholds its duties - a stark contrast to the shameful governance taking place in San Francisco as Mayor Gavin Newsom flagrantly flaunts the law.

And for Congress to be holding public hearings on the matter is not a trip down the slippery slope either. A public hearing is but one form of a public debate, just like Rush's show is. Congress has not passed any laws or handed down any ultimatums during these hearings. Rather they simply seem to be designed to gather some data points for possible legislation down the road and to provide a grandstanding opportunity for members of Congress in an election year.

I can understand and empathize with Rush's concerns, but right now I think that they're overblown. There are too many "ifs" involved: "if" the FCC starts overstepping its bounds of determining indecency, "if" Congress starts passing legislation that abridges the First Amendment, "if" John Kerry gets elected, and "if" he decides to become Caesar Kerry. If, if, if, if, if.

There are simply too many variables floating around out there right now. As I see it, the government hasn't overstepped is authority yet, and really isn't even pushing the line.

Clear Channel made the Bubba and Howard choices on their own. The motivation doesn't change that. The choices were theirs and only theirs to make. Just as the consequences of those choices are theirs and only theirs to bear.

Clear Channel has a right to choose not to broadcast material they fear might be construed as indecent. The exercising of that choice is not a violation of free speech.

Even if Rush doesn't like it.