Why not regulate speech as seriously as toys?

Unsafe at any volume

Nicholas Kristof, in a recent NYT editorial, asks: Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys? (see link, below). He trots out an interesting (though tired) argument: we regulate {X}, so why don't we regulate guns just as much?

To protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic arms industry?

My suggestion to Mr. Kristof: Be careful where you go with that line of reasoning. I'm sure Mr. Kristof cherishes the right to freedom of expression. But speech (or writing, or videos) can be far more dangerous than any gun. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword, isn't it?

Many have blamed heated political rhetoric in the wake of the recent Arizona tragedy, in which an armed lunatic opened fire, killing several people and wounding many others. If heated political rhetoric can create a climate that encourages mentally unstable people to harm others, then I say it's time we start regulating speech the same way we regulate toys. After all, to protect the public, we regulate cars and toys, medicines and mutual funds. So, simply as a public health matter, shouldn’t we take steps to reduce the toll from our domestic communications industry?

All forms of communication, including but not limited to speech and writing, should be regulated just as much as toys. Or guns.

But wait! Doesn't our cherished Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) guarantee our right to free expression, unhindered by government interference?

Perhaps once upon a time, but let's face facts: those antiquated documents were written at a time when communication technologies were far less dangerous than they are today. They were drafted at a time when the power to spread dangerous ideas and words was strictly limited, when only a select few wielded the power of the press. The founders can not have foreseen the dizzying pace of technological advance, which today allows any nut with a blog or A.M. talk show to spread his or her dangerous, heated political rhetoric. So it's safe to say we can brush aside those outdated guarantees for public safety's, and expediency's sake.

We should demand an immediate government clampdown on all forms of dangerous speech or other communications. Here's why:

• We are awash in unsafe speech. Just listen to anything on conservative talk radio or read right-wing blogs.
• Unsafe speech is a public nuisance, and must be abated.
• Speech can incite people to riot, rebel, or commit crimes against humanity. One person can cause harm to thousands if not millions. Just look at the damage caused by the rhetoric of Adolf Hitler. Or Glenn Beck.
• Porn harms bazillions of lives. Or so I've heard.

Here are a few simple yet effective things our federal government should do immediately to protect the public from harmful words and thoughts. We must not delay, as this will only increase risk to life and limb.

• Establish a Consumer Communications Safety Commission (CCSC) with authority to monitor public communication venues, looking for potentially unsafe communications. It will draft and enforce regulations using administrative proceedings, thus eliminating costly and time-consuming jury trials. This can be done under the auspices of the F.C.C.
• Require a federal license with a 30-day waiting period and a background check before publishing a new blog or website.
• Limit blog or website authors to one new post a month, and talk show hosts to one talk show a month. This will give federal regulators a chance to monitor and prosecute writers and speakers for their crimes. Licensed 'mainstream' media outlets will be exempt from this restriction, of course.
• Establish a consumer speech "hotline", where concerned citizens can report dangerous or defective communication safely, easily, and most importantly, anonymously.

Jurisdiction

Does our federal government have the authority to do any of these needful things? Surely there must be impediments to such sweeping regulation of thought and word!

Wrong again, bub. Here's why:

• It's 'well established' that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate just about anything its great big heart desires.
• Any speech (or writing) that travels in, or might have a substantial impact on interstate commerce is subject to federal regulation.
• And, since anything that travels on the Internet is by definition traveling in interstate commerce, Congress has the authority to regulate everything there.

Thoughts expressed in the privacy of your own home will remain unregulated. At least until we can show a link between unsafe speech in the home and harmful effects on children. Shouldn't be too difficult.