NRB will continue to speak out on this issue, and keep members up to date.  

[Kathleen A. Kirby and Samia Khan, "Court of appeals rehears oral arguements on remand from Supreme Court on FCC's fleeting profanity and fleeting nudity cases," Wiley Rein LLP, lexology.com, February 17, 2010.]

At the same time, the rub comes when one tries to define civility. There’s a point at which the unvarnished truth is going to be offensive to someone, a challenge faced by ministers of the Gospel every single day. Scripture clearly states that there is only one way to Christ, eschewing the syncretistic tendencies that are so popular today in our tolerant-enamored culture.

Given those complex realities, the role of religious broadcasters can be particularly difficult. We must never sacrifice truth, yet we should refrain from being shrill. We must be willing to walk the unpopular road of calling out sin (both inside and outside of the Church), but we must never forget that we are all fallen men and women, and every person is in desperate need of love, compassion, and mercy. The dichotomies are fraught with opportunities to err on one extreme or the other, especially as the next national election cycle draws near.

Here at NRB, we are constantly evaluating these issues in light of our mission: to keep the doors of electronic media open for the spread of the Gospel of Christ. Our involvement in the nation’s capital is inherent in that purpose. We cannot shy away from, or ignore, the political and legislative side of Capitol Hill or the White House. Many laws that are considered by the House and Senate would have a direct bearing on the ability of religious broadcasters to speak truth, speak freely, or both. In the months ahead, we will most likely be dealing with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), just as we had to address the issue of hate crimes legislation last year. On the Executive side of things, we’re keeping a careful eye on the FCC’s broadband plan, because the President and his advisors have enormous potential to influence legislation and the direction of our nation. Since time has proven that the price of liberty truly is eternal vigilance, we must stay engaged in every policy arena in Washington in a very tangible way.

At the same time, our association recognizes the responsibility that we have to work across all political lines. The NRB does not work “for” or “against” any political party; rather we evaluate legislation in light of our association’s mission. I recall that my first meeting on Capitol Hill, after being named President at NRB, was with a very prominent, liberal House Democrat. Not only did he receive me graciously, but this Member of Congress was also excited to tell me how fond he was of listening to a particular NRB member who had a daily radio show in the D.C. area. This man’s political reach and ability to influence legislation were (and still are) great. Clearly, it is important to reach out to Members of Congress and dialogue on legislative issues. At the same time, we can never lose sight of the fact that ultimately, the most important thing is the state of a person’s soul.

So regardless of whether or not I agree with President Obama’s comments at yesterday’s prayer breakfast, I appreciate the fact that he participated in the event. Many left-leaning groups had asked him to boycott the prayer breakfast; he did not. As religious broadcasters, we, too, have a responsibility to show up, so to speak, in the midst of the politically difficult days ahead. Some might suggest that we boycott politics because it detracts from the Word of God. I disagree wholeheartedly. As religious broadcasters, we must continue to speak the truth, but with Christ-likeness. Just as the Apostle Paul spoke the truth in a way that could be understood by the men and women who did not speak the proverbial language of orthodox Judaism, so we must speak in ways that will strike a chord with those who don’t speak our language – not with the goal of pleasing men, but with a firm conviction and heart motivation that will please God. 

Please pray for us as we continue to walk many fine lines here in Washington, D.C. NRB remains committed to standing firm in the midst of intense political wrangling, for the purpose of keeping the doors of all electronic media open for the spread of the Gospel of Christ. That is not an easy task. It is costly in terms of money, time, and talent, so we greatly appreciate your prayers for NRB’s leadership and staff as we forge into the months ahead.

The President's Column was prepared with the valuable research and writing assistance of Laurel A. MacLeod.

The opposing camps in this Net Neutrality debate seem to divide their arguments along two lines.  First, is the division between those who see themselves as free market advocates, versus those who favor a more activist regulatory apparatus.  The second division is between the content providers and the network distributors.  Both of these approaches overlook something far more elemental, with enormous consequences for a free society. But first a couple of important points.

Net Neutrality Is Not New

At times the Net Neutrality debate is couched in these terms: “We don’t want government to add regulatory burdens to a free Internet landscape. Less government regulation will allow an unfettered Internet to deliver maximum value to all parties.”

Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes put it this way:

What do the Obama administration, the Federal Communications Commission, a handful of liberal academic elites and Google all have in common?  Answer: a radical plan to regulate the Internet that may totally upend the free market in today’s massive information economy.

Well, I am a free market guy, so on its face this argument resonates with me.  Yet two points must be made about this so-called free market argument.  The first is that access to the Internet is not a free market in the traditional understanding of that term.  In fact, 80% of all access to the Internet is controlled by ten cable and telecommunication companies.  These Internet “gatekeepers” do not have monopoly power, but with the cost of entry to new market participants staggeringly high, they are what might be called an industry oligarchy.  Whatever you want to call it, using the term free market is quite a stretch.

Second is the misleading notion that this “free market” is now under duress by regulators who wish to excessively encumber it with new regulations.  The fact is that the Internet, as we know it today, was birthed and grew to its present stature largely under Net Neutrality rules requiring non-discriminatory treatment of transmitted content.  It was only a few short years ago that the FCC repealed existing Net Neutrality rules at the request of cable and telecommunication companies, who argued that they would not otherwise be able to make future investments in new technologies needed for the Internet infrastructure.

So, when you see this free market argument aggressively advanced as part of this Net Neutrality debate, at the very least you should reach for your saltshaker.  A truly free market it is not.  That does not mean, however, that government regulation is either necessary or desirable.  We are living in a time of unprecedented expansion of government power into almost every area of our existence.  As a matter of principle, such regulation should be resisted unless its public policy value can be indisputably established.

The second division in this debate seems to be between those who create, produce, and/or compile content – the very lifeblood of the Internet – and those who deliver, distribute, or otherwise enable the widespread availability of information – the essential key to the useful application of content.  In this framework, the battle seems to be between Google (as Steve Forbes suggested above) and the cable and telecommunication companies.  In an earlier day, we might have called it a battle between Time Magazine (content producer) and the U.S. Postal Service (content distributor).  Here the battle lines seem largely drawn around self-interest – what a surprise!

The Missing Argument

Forgive the digression, but all of this reminds me of a favorite Wallace & Grommit movie called: The Wrong Trousers.  But in this case it’s not the wrong trousers but the wrong argument.  Or maybe we should not call the other arguments wrong but point out that another critically important argument is largely missing from this public policy debate.

The critical question in any debate over Internet regulation must be this: What will be its impact in either preventing or enabling viewpoint discrimination?

The First Amendment was not crafted to ensure that for-profit companies earn a reasonable return on their investment.  It was written, debated, and ratified because both reason and experience prove that unrestrained government control of ideas and their expression is anathema to a truly free society.

We need not look only to historical examples to bear out this concern.  One need only look at the recent experience of Google in China, or of cell phone companies in Iran, to see how unconstrained governments can use Internet regulation for viewpoint discrimination and criminal prosecution of disfavored elements of society.

Well, that could never happen in America, you say.  Really?  The cultural landscape of the last forty years is littered with statements like that, with each of those “that will never happen” now part of the fabric of a culture seemingly in decline.

As Christian broadcasters and program producers, the future of an unrestricted Internet has significant implications for us.  Increasingly, our ability to reach the broadest audience may be at least partially dependent upon unrestricted access to the Internet.  So we should be very much interested in this debate.  Yet we must not become distracted by economic or utilitarian arguments.

At the end of the day (as we say so often on Capitol Hill), the critical concern for us is in the preservation of an unfettered Internet, so that we can continue to proclaim an unfettered Gospel.