• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • FCC "Speech Czar"? No, But That's Not the Problem

    Does the Federal Communications Commission have a “speech czar”? That was the question before Julius Genachowski yesterday, as he testified for the first time before Congress as FCC chairman. At issue was the appointment of ex-journalist Mark Lloyd to be the agency’s “chief diversity officer,” a position quickly dubbed “the diversity czar,” or the “speech czar.” For weeks now, Lloyd has been a cause celebre on conservative talk radio and other media, where he has been portrayed as yet another in a long line of powerful and unaccountable Obama policy czars and – in light of his support of government regulation of TV and radio content – a threat to free speech.

    On the first point the critics are clearly wrong. Lloyd was never a “czar” of anything. That regal title – and its connotations of unlimited influence — seems to have been entirely invented by overactive imaginations in the media. Lloyd’s actual position in the FCC bureaucracy is much more prosaic — “associate general counsel.” He serves in that position along with three other associate general counsel, and three deputy general counsels. His role as “chief diversity officer” is a little less clear. It’s a new position for the FCC, but in the private sector it is an increasingly common one, essentially coordinating internal workplace initiatives, with no specific role in media content issues.

    Nevertheless, Lloyd has written extensively in favor of regulation of media. Perhaps most notably, in 2007, he co-authored a piece on the “Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” arguing that talk radio is disproportionately conservative in tone, and suggesting steps government could take to “address the imbalance.” Among them: stricter requirements that radio stations address the “needs and interests” of their communities,” and show they are operating in the “public interest.” And if they don’t? They would pay fines, which would be used to fund public broadcasting (discussed here). In practice, this would likely amount to a tax on conservative speech.

    The paper stopped short of endorsing a return to the FCC’s old Fairness Doctrine, but not because Fairness Doctrine violated the principles of free speech, but because it was not “effective.” But the steps recommended in the study are explicitly intended to reach the same end by other means. And that end – changing the content of debate in media through government action – is offensive to First Amendment values.

    This wouldn’t be much of a concern if these ideas were as out of touch and out of the mainstream as Lloyd’s critics say. (Especially since Genachowski testified that Lloyd won’t be involved in broadcast license issues).

    But the real problem is not that Lloyd’s views are extraordinary. It is that they are far too ordinary in some political circles. The 2007 talk radio report, for instance, was not a random screed – in fact it had seven authors and was jointly published by the Center for American Progress and the advocacy group Free Press. The fact is that there is significant political support to control the content of speech, especially conservative speech.

    For his part, Genachowski asserted to Congress that he planned no such action, stating his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine by the front door or the back. “I believe deeply in the First Amendment, he added, “and oppose any effort to censor or impose speech on the basis of political viewpoint or opinion.”

    That’s good news. But it would be more reassuring if he specifically rejected the ideas in the Lloyd paper. And if other policymakers – some of which are on record as supporting the Fairness Doctrine itself – did so too.

    No, there is no “speech czar” at the FCC. But that doesn’t mean there is no threat to speech, or reason for concern.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to FCC "Speech Czar"? No, But That's Not the Problem

    1. kathy2trips says:

      "Diversity" as defined by this government is nothing more than Forced Social Engineering. Didn't Stalin do that? Naturally occurring Diversity, based on Excellence and a free-market system is inherently preferable and can only result in a better America for all!

    2. Bill San Antonio TX says:

      What is clear is that he apparently believes in "fairness". Isn't virtually all of the other media besides Fox News and talk radio, enough? I guess we'll see.

      Glad to see that Generalisimo Hugo of Venezuela is promoting free speech on TV and Radio (that's a joke people – I believe there is one free-speech radio station left) and those people are harrassed on the way to work.

      I have a friend from Venezuela; she doesn't dare return for bringing attention to her relatives. Unfortunately for her, their family was successful in business and has attracted attention from Bonaficio Chavez's regime. If she returns there is a real good chance she won't get back out (at least until their wealth is returned to Venezuela).

      Old Hugo, a jovial fellow, and a real neat guy to hang out with.

    3. Bobbie Jay says:

      Radio stations are a private industry. Except of course, the unsuccessful public broadcasting. Private radio opens the phone lines to everyone with the freedom to call in. Lots of diversity!

      Within the limited time of the show, it's first call, first served. As is fair.

      The conduct of government and their taxpaid agencies, have become deceitful, manipulative, coercive, provocative, promotive, intimidating, threatening.

      The one word honesty, has become a necessity of survival, deserving of all and a threat to government…

      FCC-fools commissioning collapse. This can never stand as it violates the 1st amendment. And the freedom to conduct private business under the common law of decency and ethics! Something the government is expected to respect!

    4. Just Me says:

      How on earth did America ever manage to get herself into this monumental pickle??? ACORN must've had something to do with it!


    5. WHY? (SF) says:

      Why are we trying to be like Chavez in Venezuela??

    6. Tenn Slim Atoka Tenn says:


      Mr Loyd's very presence is offensive to Free Speech. Again, the Camel has his Lefist nose under the tent. Do not be deceived. Mr. Loyd was not placed there by accident. His daily voice, at conferences, meetings, and the water cooler will have the Leftist impact. Folks hear and obey.


      Semper FI

    7. Pingback: FCC ?Speech Czar?? No, But That?s Not the Problem « HOME – Other Right Links and Posts

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.