A history of communication in America can only be outlined by citing The First Amendment to

the Constitution, in which it states that, "Congress shall make no law. . .prohibiting the free exercise

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"(US Constitution). As a nation, we view

this amendment to be not only one of our most cherished pieces of legal text, but also one of our most

controversial. This law was created in an era where the full impact and influence of mass

communication on "the masses" was not comparable to the scope and reach of today's communication

mediums. In order to accommodate for these instant access, highly effective mediums, the United

States government, under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt, established the Federal

Communications Commission with the Communication Act of 1934. According to the Federal

Communication Commission's website, "Section 326 of the Communications Act, prohibits the

Commission from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with freedom of expression in

broadcasting. The Constitution’s protection of free speech includes that of programming that may be

objectionable to many viewers or listeners. In this regard, the Commission has observed that “the

public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” However, the right to broadcast

material is not absolute. There are some restrictions on the material that a licensee can

broadcast"(FCC). The restrictions that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) is allowed to

impose upon broadcast material; is material that they deem indecent or objectionable. By whose

standards, especially in today's market, is material deemed objectionable or indecent?

As a media consumer and student of media, I understand the power that mass media can hold

over the “mass” that it is trying to reach. Therefore, “speech intended to incite or produce “imminent

lawless action;” and likely to “incite or produce such action”(FCC), should most certainly be regulated

in an appropriate manner. But, when it comes to, “obscene, indecent, or profane programming,”(FCC)

where is the line drawn between protecting the public interest, and limiting the freedom of speech

guaranteed by the first amendment. By the definition of free speech, “Indecent material as well as

profane material are protected by the First Amendment, so its broadcast cannot be outlawed
entirely”(FCC). In his article, “Toward a Broadband Public Interest Standard”, Anthony E. Verona

states that "the public interest theorists sought not to define the public interest so much as to create and

protect structures which allowed an organically defined version of the public interest to percolate

naturally to the top of the political arena”(Verona 136), which I completely agree with. The public

interests of a community such as New York, with a diverse and cutting edge metropolitan population

will be vastly different from the public interests of a completely rural place such as Gerry Indiana.

“Former FCC Chair Newton Minow has suggested that the term was used in the legislation to provide

an overarching regulatory standard to direct the government's interventions into the wholly novel and

uncharted territory of broadcasting”(Verona 136). The FCC's (composed of only 5 chairpersons)

“overarching objective in administering the public interest standard always has been to "meet certain

basic needs of American politics and culture, over and above what the marketplace may or may not

provide,”(Verona 136). But, “in order to "cultivate a more informed citizenry, greater democratic

dialogue, diversity of expression, a more educated population, and more robust, culturally inclusive

communities"(Verona 136), should any form of speech therein be limited.

We limit our growth as a community by limiting speech, which in turn is a limitation of

expression. There are upsides where the content creators must come up with either flagrant violations

in order to create “spectacle” such as Janet Jackson revealing a breast during a Superbowl halftime

show, or use innovative ways to circumvent the FCC standards, with shows like “Arrested

Development's” approach. I see a future for the American public where all information will soon

become digital information as we move our print, radio, and television closer and closer to all being on

the internet. With a wider audience potential, easier and cheaper access, and an unregulated medium

the FCC's control will start to feign and we will see a potential attempt at regulating content on the

internet.