The Federal Communications Commission, an agency of the US federal government clearly owns the air waves and distributes licenses on their use.
Couldn’t a case be made that the uses of public airwaves for religious broadcasting contravenes the Establishment of Religion clause in the US constitution?
Sure, in the same way that governments own the roadways and distribute licenses for their use. Driving a car to church must also contravene the EoR clause.
Absolutely. You have an air tight case. Go find an attorney now.
No, because they are not forcing religious broadcasts on the public, they merely allow religious broadcasters to transmit their content, without regard to which religion they espouse. It is similar to the prayer in school issue: the courts have stated that schools cannot lead students in prayer, since that violates separation; however, they have also said is perfectly ok for individual students to pray or form small prayer groups, since these activites are not controlled by the school.
Although, in some cases, the prayer groups have been asked to meet off campus.
No, for the same reason as a public park in New York State is not the “property” of the city or town it’s located in.
It’s a public trust. The FCC doesn’t “own” the airwaves; they’re the property of the corporate public (worldwide, actually, with the FCC having the US “franchise” for them.) The FCC has custody of them, to assure they’re used in accordance with federal law. Just as parks in NYS are owned by “the public” and it requires state legislative approval to turn them into something else.
Continuing the parallel, a church wanting to hold a parish picnic can reserve space at the park on the same grounds as a family reunion, the Elks Club or anybody else. In that regard, they’re a secular entity no different from any other.
And a religious broadcaster is entitled to use some particular portion of the airwaves in exactly the same way as Clear Channels, Podunk Radio Inc., the South Dakota Public Broadcasting Authority, or Citizens Society for Broadcast Classical Music is.
And under the same rules.
The FCC regulates who has ownership of broadcasting facilities. It would be an abrogation of the First Amendment for the FCC to deny access to breoadcasting for religious purposes.
If the FCC established that only religious broadcasts could be made or that religious broadcasts could never be made, that would be interference. Permitting one group or another to apply for a broadcasting license and granting those licenses based on a first-come, first-served basis is not the same thing as regulating who can broadcast based on religion.
There are “community standards” issues that have gotten into the mix, since bandwidth is a finite resource (which is why there is an FCC), but as long as the broadcast units are not doing anything to violate the (sometimes common sense and other times arcane) standards that have been established, there is no reason for the FCC to interfere with the broadcast choices of any group.
Technically, if the school allows other student organizations, “asking” them to do so is contrary to the Free Exercise Clause.
No. The Establishment clause does not force atheism on the government. It merely prevents the government from forcing religion on anyone or playing favorites. So long as the public airwaves are open to anyone, using the same guidelines, then it perfectly fine.
Moving thread from the Pit to Great Debates at the request of the OP.
However, if the church broadcasts say one of the seven dirty words or spawn other issues for citation, they can be fined by the FCC, with the same legality they fine other shows.
The fines for other than the seven dirty words are on dubious grounds, mind you. The FCC has been noted for attempting to, ah, increase its mandate.
Ah, the First Law of Bureaucracy: If it moves, regulate it!
(The Second Law is: If it doesn’t move, regulate it anyway!)
But they are forcing the station employees to participate in proselytising for a religious faith that they might disagree with.
If for example a number of rich Saudi sheiks bought control of all the current television broadcast licenses and bumped off the Christian televangelists for Muslim broadcasts, don’t you think the FCC would and could intervene?
If I’m not mistaken, there’s an exception clause to the non-discrimination employment laws that permits a religious body to employ only those who adhere to its beliefs.
And licenses are not, strictly speaking, bought; they’re issued, for a hefty fee to be sure, to any group that is willing to comply with FCC regulations and has the money to erect and maintain a broadcast facility. So the sheiks couldn’t buy all the licenses.
Tough beans. Religous broadcasters have an equal right to access the public’s airwaves and it is just as illegal for the government to discriminate against religion as it is for it to discriminate for religion.
If they were discriminating against the Christian televangelists, then yes. As I said, there can’t be discrimination for or against any religion. If a rich Saudi sheik simply ponied up big bucks to purchase large blocks of airtime to proselytize his faith and complied with all rules and regulations, then the FCC wouldn’t do anything.
Well, if a rich Saudi Sheik bought a station, they might, because there are restrictions on foreign ownership of FCC licenses.
And the stations aren’t forcing the employees to participate in proslytizing a religious faith they don’t agree with, any more than a church is forcing its employees to do the same thing. If I get a job at a Christian radio station, one would assume I’d know and agree with the message it broadcasts.