Thread by @glakier

A quick thread for those worried about the impact of the Great Deplatforming on freedom of speech in the US: the platforms are not the only private companies that control who gets to speak in the mass public sphere. Radio and television companies do too! 1/12

Today SCOTUS will hear args in a case raising the Q : what kinds of evidence must the FCC have before it can lift caps on radio and TV ownership meant to guard against the domination of the mass public by any one viewpt or actor. 2/ scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…

These ownership caps were payback for the great corporate giveaway of the 1934, when the fed gov gave YOUR public property (the airwaves) almost entirely to for-profit companies, who continue to control YOUR property for free. 3/12

Some have argued that the ownership caps were NEVER enough to ensure the kind of diversity that a vibrant democracy requires. Robert McChesney has written a wonderful book chronicling the early 20th century debates about this: amazon.com/Telecommunicat… 4/12

The caps were nevertheless the most important means by which the gov ensured that no one corp or cabal of corps entirely controlled the content of the broadcast news, particularly after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (probably also before). 5/12

Since the 1990s however the FCC has been rolling the caps back. The case today asks how far they can be rolled back, even while the FCC maintains in principle its commitment to media diversity (as it is REQUIRED to do, by fed law). 6/12

The details are complex and the issues difficult. The broadcast corps argue that the ownership caps need to be lifted if they are to survive in a media landscape where non-broadcast media is not subject to the same caps. 7/12

The petitioners argue, in response, that allowing further consolidation is going to undermine the vitality of this super important corner of our mass public. And all of these args are wrapped in the technical language of a fight over arbitrary & capricious review. 8/12

I assume the Court is going to side with the companies. I assume also that the Biden FCC is going to be much less deregulatory than the Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Bush II, and Trump FCCs. (Obama’s FCC was interesting). So maybe this particular case doesn’t matter very much. 9/12

BUT I find it noteworthy that while so many people are hot and bothered about private corp control of social media, there is much less concern about private corp control of the airwaves. 10/12

All of which is to say that today’s boring admin law case raises deep Qs about what free speech means in a country in which control of our most important mass public forums is not only entirely privately-owned but dominated by huge commercial for-profit entities. 11/12

These are questions we need to be talking about as free speech Qs. At least if we think freedom of speech requires a vibrant and diverse public debate about political and social matters. 12/12.

Update: In a truly shocking development, the majority of justices on SCOTUS appear sympathetic to the broadcasting companies. Who could have guessed? Excellent summary of today's arguments here: scotusblog.com/2021/01/argume…