Dear Editor,
I refer to a long letter from Kit Nascimento captioned “Broadcasters are held to a high standard of public responsibility” (08.04.19).
I totally disagree with much of what Mr Nascimento has written, since it is predicated on these words which appear at the very beginning of his tirade: “unlike the rest of the media, the broadcaster is bound by statutory obligations to serve the public interest in a defined way which would abridge the constitutional right to free speech which other media and published speech enjoy”.
This broadcaster will never agree that anything can be placed in any law governing broadcasting in this country which will abridge my constitutional right to free speech. My constitutional right to free speech is a right which, because of the fact that I am guaranteed it in the constitution itself which stands supreme, no other law can ever be passed (which cannot be challenged in court) which interferes with that right.
Mr Nascimento prefaces his presentation by saying that the United States’ Federal Communications Commission has had as its cornerstone the obligation to regulate broadcasting in the common interest, convenience and necessity. After using this line Mr Nascimento goes on to tell us what should be regulated in any democracy and in doing so he lists numerous things in our act which have nothing to do with broadcasting regulations, but have everything to do with constitutional violations to the right to freedom of speech.
The current FCC’s position on free speech, as it continues to regulate broadcasting in the US is contained in the two paragraphs which I reproduce here verbatim for the Guyanese public especially those who will in time attempt to introduce broadcast legislation. And you don’t have to look far just enter the words. “FCC freedom of speech” in google and you will see it www.fee.gov.
“Background
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect, or somehow improper political, economic, or social statements. Often consumers complain that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system, or established institutions like family or marriage.
They say these attacks are “un-American” and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, “stereotype,” or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, or other characteristic of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane, or otherwise offensive.
What is the FCC’s Responsibility?
The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not involve a “clear and present danger of serious substantive evil” come under the protection of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The FCC cannot suppress such expressions. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, “the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views.” This principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive. However, the Commission does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances.
For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”
Mr Nascimento should take his “plan” back to the drawing board.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira
