Ask any American to name the one or two
factors that most distinguish the United States from other countries,
and chances are he or she will cite our nation's constitutional
tradition of freedom - including freedom of religion, freedom of
expression, and freedom of the press.
A recent ruling by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC), the federal agency that controls and
monitors the TV airwaves, flies in the face of all of these near-sacred
American principles.
Over the New Year's weekend, while most
Americans were preoccupied with Y2K preparations and the arrival of the
new millennium, the FCC handed down a decision on a Pittsburgh case
involving a "channel swap" involving the local public television
station, a local religious broadcasting station and a non-commercial,
educational TV station.
Though it concerned a local issue, the
impact of the ruling extends far beyond the city limits of
Pittsburgh. Tucked into the FCC's verdict, you see, were 40 pages
of new federal rules for non-commercial stations -- including an
explicit requirement that religious broadcasters who apply for FCC
licenses must replace at least 50 percent of their traditional religious
programming with federally-approved "educational" content.
In order to be deemed "educational," the
FCC ruled, programming cannot be "primarily devoted to religious
exhortation, proselytizing or statements of personally held religious
values or beliefs."
Does anybody really believe religious
broadcasters can meet such a standard? Of course not. And that may
be the most disturbing thing about the FCC ruling: it's hard to
interpret it as anything but an attempt to force religious programming
off the airwaves - a stealth attack on religious broadcasting and the
millions of Americans who tune into such programs.
It's tough to understand why the federal
government is singling out religious broadcasters for such
regulation. Compounding the outrage is the fact that the decision
was handed down by the FCC in the dark of night, without even so much as
an effort to seek public comment beforehand.
One this is clear: the FCC edict should
not stand. In addition to being suspiciously timed, poorly
conceived, and blatantly unfair, it is constitutionally dubious.
If FCC officials won't reverse the decision, Congress may have to step
in.
Congressman Mike Oxley (R-Lima), who
represents the neighboring Fourth Congressional District of Ohio, has
already drafted legislation that would allow Congress to do just
that. Oxley will introduce his bill when Congress reconvenes on
January 24th. I support this effort, and I've signed on to be an
original co-sponsor of the Oxley bill.
Oxley has also written letters to both
Vice President Al Gore (the Clinton Administration's point man on
telecommunications issues) and FCC Chairman William Kennard protesting
the decision.
"The FCC is neither qualified nor
authorized to pass judgment on the content of religious programming,"
Oxley wrote. "Washington bureaucrats have no business regulating
the speech of religious broadcasters. We urge you to condemn the
FCC's actions and counsel the Commission to withdraw its
order."
To date, neither Gore nor Kennard had
responded, and whether the FCC retreats or not remains to be seen.
But congressional efforts are already underway that would overturn the
ruling and require the federal government to seek public comment before
issuing any such directives in the future. This unconstitutional attack
on religious and expressive freedom must not
stand.