Indecent and profane language regulation aren't the only way the FCC mucks around with content regulation of broadcast. The same statutes and justifications for regulating "bad" speech provide the foundation for mandating certain types of "good" speech. This "good" speech is usually referred to by the rubric "public interest obligations." Censorship has two faces, what you can't say and what you must say.

FCC Chairman Michael Powell seems awfully fond of defending indecency regulations (My Trip to California:

Congress is elected and represents the full body of the American people and the laws it passes are presumed to be reflective of the public will. Congress, having passed the law, can and has directed the FCC to enforce the law. This is where our authority (indeed our obligation) comes from.

Of course, that justification still leaves much discretion in the hands of the FCC regarding how to enforce the law. What Powell doesn't explain is why the FCC has taken such an aggressive position regarding indecency enforcement but not in requiring stricter public interest obligations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm against both indecency regulation and public interest obligations. I just want to point out Powell's hypocrisy. Of course, a better demonstration of this hypocrisy comes from Commissioner Michael Copps who consistently favors strong regulation of both indecency and public interest obligations. His recent speech to the Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition proves this (Remarks of Commissioner Michael J. Copps, Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition, Washington, DC, July 19, 2004 [PDF])

We need America’s broadcasters to step up to the plate and correct this deplorable mess. Commissioner Adelstein has made some really good suggestions on these issues. The Public Interest, Public Airwaves coalition has put forth more good ideas. I was proud to be present at their unveiling. Some broadcasters are committing to air more candidate-centered speech and public service announcements this year—but not enough of them. Wouldn’t it be nice to see every broadcaster in this country step up to the plate and designate the rest of this election year as the “Campaign for America” and devote some truly meaningful time to it. And I don’t mean just a few minutes here and there, but time commensurate with the tough challenges that confront every citizen in 2004. The issues are war and jobs and health care and deficits and consumer well-being… yet those charged with using the public airwaves for the public good can’t get serious about covering what’s at stake?

And what are the "good ideas" that the Public Interest, Public Airwaves Coalition supports (Proposed Processing Guidelines)? Basically, they would set out a series of obligations that broadcasters must meet in order to get their licences renewed:

To receive staff level approval, a licensee shall air a minimum of three (3) hours per week of qualifying local civic or electoral affairs programming on the most-watched (primary) channel they control/operate....

• It must be aired between 7:00 a.m. and 11:35 p.m. with at least 50 percent of that programming being aired between 5:00 p.m. and 11:35 p.m.
• At least 75 percent of the required minimum must be "first-run programming" by the licensee.
• A licensee holding multiple licenses within the same area (as defined by the Commission's rules permitting multiple ownership) may not fulfill its requirements by duplicating original "first run" programming on its stations. Each station licensed within a market must fulfill the public interest guidelines by providing the public with a unique perspective.
• To the extent that a licensee utilizes such distribution and promotion mechanisms as personal video recorders (PVRs), video-on-demand (VOD), and electronic program guides (EPGs), local civic and electoral affairs programming must be made available and promoted using these and other utilized interactive technologies.
• It must be identified and documented as local civic or electoral affairs programming, and this information must be made available in the licensee's public file and website.

Is this what free speech looks like? And this is just a small sample of the extensive list of requirements that the coalition suggests. All for your own good, of course.