How does the Government regulate the media?

Answer 1

Governments have no business regulating media. What should be regulated? The expression of free speech is not subject to any legitimate jurisdiction. The fact that there are governments, even in the United States, that grant certain licensing in order to broadcast the expression of free speech over the airwaves is a statutory scheme that relies upon the voluntary and willful application for license in order to maintain any legal jurisdiction. The notion of "pirate" radio or television studios under the Constitution of the United States of America is bewildering and legally not sound. If the licensing of "air waves" or radio and television signals creates a situation where certain people are being favored over the rest of the people, this in itself makes the licensing scheme unconstitutional. If there is any validity at all to administrative agencies such as the FCC, their jurisdiction lies with those who are subject to the codes of regulation that govern licensed broadcasting. Any broadcast done outside of that jurisdiction, and assuming that broadcast is not interfering with any other broadcast, is not subject to the codes of regulation regarding licensed broadcasting and therefor not subject to any authority the FCC may assume.

The problem with government regulated media is evidenced by the corporate media conglomerations that control the vast majority of licenses granted by government to broadcast under the terms of the code of regulation governing licensed broadcasting. The centralized pool of information is greatly limited by this form of government regulation over media and the public would be better served by unlicensed broadcasters competing on a very local level with the corporate structure.

The mass availability of various print media exists exactly because of the lack of licensed regulation that exists within the broadcast media. Many smaller papers and magazines across the world voice opinions and reveal facts not normally found in the corporate media paradigm and the world of print is a richer and more vibrant and fertile ground for ideas and vociferous advocacy.

The internet, still unregulated by the behemoths we call governments is also a place of vitality and electric activity, free and unburdened by the cumbersome chains of inept governments. Of course, the ineptness of the people shines gloriously within the internet but so does the brilliance of people and it is the free exchange of ideas and convictions that makes this newest form of media perhaps the most important of all.

Answer 2

Personally, I do not believe that the government should restrict the media engagement. The US does have a constitution for a reason, and allowing the government to restrict us like this is making us into a socialist country. It is the job of the parents to restrict the amount of technology usage that their children get, and although some parents do not do a very good job at this, it is not the job of the government to tell them so. Also, although people may argue that media causes violence in children, and can cause serious health issues, it is not the job of the government to tell them so. However, I do believe that parents should do a better job in limiting use, instead of using technology as an excuse to keep their kids busy. Plus, you must think of the schools that rely on technology in their day to day classes. With a restriction on media usage, what would happen to their classes, or the students study time at home? No, the government should not restrict the media engagement.

Answer 3

for the Government to regulate the media the individual as well as a company is suppose to have a LICENSE in order to set up a radio or television stauon as well as publishing a newspaper