My Take On The FCC

Have you watched a television show lately, or listened to music on the radio? If so, then you probably have heard of the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC.  According to this government agency, they have a mandate to regulate the airwaves, and decide what can and cannot be expressed.  They are the "speech police", which flies in the face of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...").  

Recently, the Commission has taken the attitude that they can do anything that they want, regardless of what the Constitution and the law say.  To illustrate this, let's take the example of one Michael Dudley, a citizen of Guntersville, Alabama.  

On or about May 3rd, 2016, the Commission received a complaint regarding a possible unlicensed radio station (as indicated in FCC records).  After investigating, an agent found that Mr. Dudley was operating such a station on 103.9 megahertz.  In response to another complaint (made on or about July 18th, 2016), the Commission subsequently found that another unlicensed station belonging to Dudley was operating on 107.9 megahertz (Dudley admitted to operating this station without a license).  

An agent informed Mr. Dudley (through a "Notice Of Unlicensed Operation") that stations such as the one he was operation are illegal (the majority of broadcasting stations in the US must have a license).  Nevertheless, Dudley refused to cease his unlicensed broadcasts.  As such, on October 20th, 2016, the Commission issued Mr. Dudley a "Notice of Apparent Liability" (NAL), and proposed a fifteen thousand dollar fine against him.  

For his part, Mr. Dudley mounted a legal challenge against the FCC's order.  In a response to the Commission, Dudley argued that:

1. His broadcasts did not cause interference to any other station.  

2. Nobody was harmed by the operation of his station.  On the contrary, the local community liked and supported the station.  

3. He had no tangible assets or income, and was unable to pay the fine.  

As part of these arguments, Mr. Dudley asked for the cancellation or reduction of the proposed fine; the Commission declined this request on all three counts.  Specifically, the FCC declared that argument one was "irrelevant", claiming that they are not required to make "a finding of interference before...prohibit(ing) unauthorized transmissions".  

Let that sink in for a moment.  Even if your station isn't causing interference, and therefore harming nobody, the FCC says that it doesn't matter; they can still shut you down.  Also, the Commission declares that your ability (or inability) to pay a fine doesn't matter either.  Even if the fine would leave you penniless, the FCC says that you must pay.  

How are these directives even partially constitutional in nature? The answer is simple; they're not, in any shape or form.  Our founding fathers intended us to be able to write, speak, and express or thoughts and opinions as we see fit.  The FCC, although necessary for its original purpose (which was to make sure the airwaves didn't get overcrowded), has become yet another unmanageable part of the federal bureaucracy.  It's time to drastically reform this body, and return control of the airwaves to the people.