Ayn Rand Denounced the FCC's 'Public Interest' Censorship More Than 60 Years Ago
In her 1962 essay "Have Gun, Will Nudge," Rand foresaw how government officials would seek to silence people they don't like.
After Jimmy Kimmel delivered a misinformed monologue about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr pressured broadcast channels to take the comedian off the air. Carr faced immediate pushback: Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania all chastised Carr for trying to use his position to steer private companies' editorial decisions—a serious breach of free speech principles.
Carr is not without his defenders, however. Nathan Leamer, tech policy writer and onetime adviser to former FCC Chair Ajit Pai, asserts that Carr's actions fall squarely within his duty to promote the "public interest" on television, as defined by the Communications Act of 1934. He also assails libertarians in particular for not caring about how the FCC works, and he suggests that such skeptics are incorrectly or selectively railing against the public interest standard in the Kimmel case.
But fans of the free market have been warning that broad interpretations of the public interest standard will empower the FCC to engage in censorship for over 60 years. Just read Ayn Rand.
In 1962, Rand penned a prophetic warning about the public interest standard, which then–FCC Chair Newton N. Minow was citing to justify pressuring television companies to create more educational programming. Minow famously railed against a supposedly "vast wasteland" of shoddy television shows, and he claimed that the FCC's charter empowered him to push for editorial changes to the medium that would align with his view of the public interest.
"You must provide a wider range of choices, more diversity, more alternatives," said Minow in his well-remembered 1961 speech. "It is not enough to cater to the nation's whims; you must also serve the nation's needs."
Minow repeatedly claimed that he was not in favor of government censorship and was not trying to tell broadcasters what they could and could not say. Rather, he charged them to make nebulous and ill-defined improvements to the product that he believed would be better appreciated by the American public—i.e., the public interest.
In her March 1962 essay "Have Gun, Will Nudge," Rand argued that this was censorship by another name. "It is true, as Mr. Minow assures us, that he does not propose to establish censorship; what he proposes is much worse," she wrote. Unlike explicit bans on speech, Rand warned, the modern method of censorship "neither forbids nor permits anything; it never defines or specifies; it merely delivers men's lives, fortunes, careers, ambitions into the arbitrary power of a bureaucrat who can reward or punish at whim."
This strong-arming, she argued, spares the bureaucrat from rules or standards and instead "places upon the victims the burden of discovering how to please him, with a fluid unknowable as their only guide."
She even imagined how such influence could play out in practice. "A federal commissioner may never utter a single word for or against any program. But what do you suppose will happen," Rand asked, "if and when, with or without his knowledge, a third-assistant or a second cousin or just a nameless friend from Washington whispers to a television executive that the commissioner does not like producer X or does not approve of writer Y or takes a great interest in the career of starlet Z or is anxious to advance the cause of the United Nations?"
The title of the essay was inspired by Rand's contention that a man who holds a gun to your head and demands your wallet is surely deploying impermissible force rather than mere encouragement. When the FCC chair proclaims that a private company can "do this the easy way or the hard way," he is providing a similar kind of nudge.
"What makes it possible to bring a free country down to such a level?" Rand asked. "If you doubt the connection between altruism and statism, I suggest that you count how many times—in the current articles, speeches, debates and hearings—there appeared the magic formula which makes all such outrages possible: 'The Public Interest.'"
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Ayn Rand Denounced FCC Censorship 60 Years Ago."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
What did the Supreme Court say about this?
All in on it.
This is the usual tactic by reason. They will ignore the 90% of things she said, but agrees with her on one point so they will pretend that 90% disagreement doesnt exist.
I doubt any of the writers here have actually read her objectivist books or her fiction.
You mean it isn't true that not everything Ayn Rand and J.D. Vance said is wrong?
Funny how when it's Democrats making threats you're all in favor of government actors free speech and "private companies," can make of it what they will but a Republican mentions their legal requirements and it's the end of liberty. Fuck off you dishonest Leftist cunts.
Needz moar Nina Jankowicz.
She has always seemed like the onlyfans type.
True.
Are aging in place, right wing incels pretty active on onlyfans?
Kill yourself.
Walz +4
He’s just such a lazy troll.
Indeed. And a retard, as I indicated in my comment. Four points above the Walz Retardation Standard.
Using Walz as the barometer is hilarious btw.
Jimmy Kimmel delivered a misinformed monologue about the assassination of Charlie Kirk
That's a weird way to say 'Lied and deliberately misled his low-information audience'.
But it works on idiots.
Media Research Center
@theMRC
EXCLUSIVE MRC POLL: Only 24% of likely voters know Charlie Kirk’s assassin was a radical leftist.
The elitist media are the enemy of the people.
David Bozell
@DavidBozell
Most disturbing: Our poll revealed that 33.2 percent of students believed Charlie Kirk’s accused murderer was right-wing, while a paltry 4.0 percent accurately labeled him left-wing.
Overheard a guy say Charlie “had it coming because he was a hater”.
And I will bet that guy thinks the D.C. pipe bomb suspect is a white MAGA.
This is the united states you fucking monkey, we shoot children for breakfast here its the price of our constitutional features. If you think we care about individuals and their losses youre in the wrong country. We collectively agree to favor our paragraphs and dollar bills over your petty individual pains. Move if you dont like it
Kill yourself.
Who's this "we," you authoritarian nutjob?
Haha. Charlie Brown cares. What a guy.
Lol. Loser.
Everything is so terrible and unfair!
What a doosh!
Walz +1
Walz +5
Candace Owen’s isn’t helping any of those numbers.
That's a weird way to say 'Lied and deliberately misled his low-information audience'.
He's a right winger? That's news.
Poor sarc. Even tries to project his own teams lying onto the team he hates.
That is the way Kimmel presented the shooter, yes. Odd, right?
The right-wingers in these comments are willfully ignorant and misled, so I figured, being that they shun knowledge and repeat lies, that they would like Kimmel.
Do you have a citation? I have plenty of you and other leftists.
Walz +4
Walz +4
Thomas Hazlett's book Political Spectrum covers the FCC from beginning to a few years ago. Read a review here: https://www.hoover.org/research/how-electromagnetic-spectrum-became-politicized
It's depressing in a way; after a while, you get tired of reading one instance after another of FCC screwup. They delayed FM radio, TV, color TV, cable TV, satellite TV and radio, WiFi, cell phones, everything they could get their paws on, by 10-20 yeas each.
Thanks, I’ll check that out.
1 scentance in and you lied. Kill yourself. Sinclair pulled Kimmel because they are unable to sell advertisement.
I think Kimmel and all the other faggot libtards should be allowed to broadcast their evil opinions as soon as Charlie Kirk is back to being able to talk
No, progressive fag-tards should be free to say whatever they want--and then be forced to admit what they said every month into the future.
Kill yourself
Ha ha.
Say that while looking in a mirror, Kreepy KAR Kreature?
Walz +2
Sinclair brought back Kimmel just days after dropping him.
You comment is more proof that MAGA lies are okay.
Dumb as bricks.
You have a low standard of proof. Perhaps it was a strategy to get more people watching him again until the contract runs out. Worked at least in the short term.
There's no way Rand would have supported Trump. That makes her a leftist. Because of that everything she said was wrong.
Zzzzzzzz
A concise way to state how asleep right wingers really are.
Walz +2
Speaking of someone who has never read Rand or any other book...
Do labels on bottles of vodka count as books?
Walz +3
Is that what it said on bastiat dot com?
I would say that we’ve escalated to the “terrorism against conservatives” portion of the revolution but it’s clear we’ve been there for a while
And yet somehow there are still plenty of conservatives who refuse to acknowledge the obvious and attack those that do
https://x.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1997331235266290165
Last night a vehicle approached our property and opened fire.
No one was hurt.
Our security team is reviewing the incident and will be relaying the report to appropriate law enforcement
This is the price we pay for speaking out against evil.
https://x.com/Timcast/status/1997305713262026793
The price they pay. Like that ck guy said. While Europeans laugh at them every day when they safely go for walks at night during their six weeks of paid vacation, in well-maintained, walkable cities. Possibly with a bottle of beer, and nobody cares. No police officer bothers them just because they are out at night, the likelihood of getting robbed is very low. Then, the next day, they have to go to the hospital because their appendix got inflamed and needed to be removed - and not a single thought was spent worrying about a so-called "hospital bill". They return home soon and get those days changed into paid sick days. Then they continue to go for walks without any worries, and laugh at americans when they watch the news.
But you have so much freedom, eh? 😀 haha, fucking losers.
Walz +6
Holy god, right wingers think they're so important. Kids get shot up in this country, stop whining, nobody cares about your pathetic hurt feelings. Idiots.
Walz +4
And its also the price we pay for the 2nd amendment, fucking get over it, we've really had it with your self-important whining. Youre not that special.
Kill yourself.
That Kreepy KAR thing needs to slither back under the floorboards of the Belgian whorehouse from whence it hatched.
Wrong place you stupid god damn hick.
Slither back to your shithole trailer you white trash vermin.
Walz +5
In her March 1962 essay "Have Gun, Will Nudge," Rand argued that this was censorship by another name.
What did she argue this was?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4P-6sZSEqzA
Jimmy Kimmel's day off vs Alex Jones getting hit for $1.5 billion seems like a pretty clear case of which is the more concerning turn of events for free speech. Kimmel by the way cheered on what was being done to Jones the entire time.
Yes free speech is a critical issue, but so is one of the parties clear shift to weaponizing the judiciary against people it doesn't like.
Perhaps there should be a class action suit against Kimmel for a few billion. Destroying someone like him would be so much fun.
Define what 'pressured' is in "Brendan Carr pressured broadcast channels to take the comedian off the air"
Oh whoops. There was no 'pressure' that wasn't protected under the 1A.
"Nexstar has rejected claims it suspended the show over pressure from the feds."
This whole narrative is cooked-up BS from leftards who send out White House letter-headed censorship requests who are now pretending a public *speech* suggestion from Carr is a 1A violation.
Leftard Self-Projection 101.
Taking what they do; twisting and manipulating it and blaming it onto anyone else in sight.
If feminist "libertarian" females can take guns and shoot at anyone who doesn't want to privatize government into a women's only business, maybe The People should produce more Mangione clones to get rid of parasites like founders of Character AI which is a Chosen model of Institutionalized pedophilia meant to destroy children brains and life.
Fortunately the whole network television things is dying and so the regulators won't have the power anymore.
The author makes a good point but why does Reason only use examples that make the Right look bad? What about all of the COVID "misinformation" pressure put on by the Left to cancel COVID vaccine speech? Why not cite recent examples of BOTH main parties? Maybe Reason needs better editors that focus on this problem?
FIFY