How CBS Lost the Super Bowl Case
[Commentary] While the outcome of CBS v. FCC seems like a win for free speech, it is really the opposite. In last week's decision, the court never tells the FCC that it may not regulate broadcast programming content. Indeed, it said that FCC regulation of broadcast speech is permissible, only the process was flawed. Essentially, CBS won on a procedural technicality, not on the broader issue of whether the government may regulate speech. And while broadcasters are mistaken that this case is a major victory, let's hope investors are more aware. Federal indecency rules are but one example of regulations unique to broadcasting. They have been rationalized by the courts as part of a larger system of regulation artificially premised on spectrum scarcity (everything of value is scarce but not everything is subject to content regulation) and the protection of children. But many parents want their children to have full access to books and the Internet, neither of which is federally regulated. Federal policy is to bring the Internet to every classroom and every farm and village in America at a cost of billions of dollars annually. The Internet has no shortage of indecent material. Broadcasting, by contrast, is intellectually orphaned by the government. No federal program insists on, much less subsidizes, broadcast access to every classroom. Nonetheless, much of government content regulation is rationalized on protecting children. Investors and all Americans will cheer when the Supreme Court ultimately stops broadcast content regulation. Broadcasting will not turn into a cesspool of indecent material any more than book publishing or newspapers are today. Instead, unshackled from excessive regulation, broadcasters will be able to compete more effectively, to the benefit of all consumers. (Furchtgott-Roth is a former FCC commissioner.)