Ayn Rand Criticized FCC's Censorship of 'Public Interest' Over 60 Years Ago

Following Jimmy Kimmel's inaccurate monologue about Charlie Kirk's assassination, FCC Chair Brendan Carr urged television networks to remove the comedian from the air. This prompted immediate criticism from Republican Senators Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Dave McCormick, who condemned Carr for attempting to influence private media contenta move seen as undermining free speech.

Supporters of Carr, like tech policy analyst Nathan Leamer, argue that his intervention aligns with the FCC's mandate to uphold the "public interest" in broadcasting, as outlined in the Communications Act of 1934. Leamer also criticizes libertarians for allegedly misunderstanding the role of the FCC and selectively opposing the public interest standard in this situation.

However, advocates of free markets have long cautioned that a broad interpretation of the public interest could lead to regulatory censorship. More than 60 years ago, Ayn Rand highlighted these dangers. In 1962, she responded to FCC Chair Newton N. Minow's use of the public interest standard to pressure networks into producing more educational content. Minow had famously labeled much of television a "vast wasteland" and urged networks to provide more diversity and choices to meet the publics needs.

Minow insisted that his proposals were not government censorship but rather guidance for improving television content. Rand, in her essay "Have Gun, Will Nudge," argued that this amounted to indirect censorship. She warned that it allowed bureaucrats to control the lives and careers of media professionals arbitrarily, without clear rules or boundaries.

Rand described the danger vividly, noting how subtle influencethrough a commissioners suggestions or indirect communicationscould dictate the success or failure of writers, producers, and actors. She compared this to a person holding a gun and demanding a wallet, illustrating that coercion could be masked as guidance or encouragement.

She concluded by questioning how a society could allow a free country to be controlled through the vague and all-encompassing concept of the "Public Interest," linking such regulatory power to broader threats to freedom.

Author: Noah Whitman