The Trump administration’s viewpoints on “fake news” and agenda on deregulation have led to questions on what happens next. Considering the A.P. not being allowed to report within The White House, such blatant disregard for a venerable outlet has journalists in an uproar.
Many of us question what other rigid decisiveness is to be expected and how the law factors into it. The subject of regulation and how it may function can be predicted just as precedents can via stare decis.
The most notable instance can be found in FCC V. Pacifica Foundation. This precedent set the standard for what can be broadcast on public airwaves during certain times. The content seen as perverse in nature will be broadcast later at night when children are less likely to have access to airwaves.
This was a monumental instance in which what is seen as the ethical good of the public was put above the general protections of the First Amendment.
However, they are, as I said, general.
The First Amendment allows denizens of the nation to speak and express freely, but public airwaves are subject to a higher level of scrutiny.
Due to its ability to reach a wide variety of audiences, the common good must be considered.
The FCC then faced a tricky balancing act in which they had to protect the right of press and speech and the good of the people.
In essence, that is regulation: a balancing act of protecting the people’s sensibilities whilst preserving the right to free speech.
What is also important to consider is there wasn’t a forcible expulsion of the content being produced. Still, it is a set of guidelines that broadcast television and radio are meant to follow.
This contrasts starkly with the Fairness Doctrine, in which stations are forced to report multiple angles of any given story.
The Fairness Doctrine directly influences what can and cannot be stated, so it is an example of a regulation that was deemed unconstitutional.
All this to say, regulation can be both good and bad; it is meant to provide order over the airwaves. To discard all the precedents set by the courts and upheld by the FCC would be to open Pandora’s box, and that, I argue, would be an injustice to how far we’ve come.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy9njyljrgo
https://www.dwt.com/blogs/broadband-advisor/2025/03/trump-independent-agency-order-fcc-regulat
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/726/#tab-opinion-1952779
check the press 
Leave a comment