This debate is set forth today on the website Daily Caller, which has compiled a collection of various postings by journalists and others from the website Journolist since Obama's election. In this one particular discussion, UCLA law school professor Jonathan Zasloff posits the question, "is there any reason the FCC couldn't simply pull their [Fox News'] broadcasting permit once it expires?" John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, expresses his agreement with Zasloff's sentiment.
Now, while I'm sure that Obama FCC "diversity czar" Mark Lloyd would like nothing better than to simply pull the ol' plug on Fox News, the UCLA professor's suggestion does run into just a couple of tiny little problems. First, Fox News is not a broadcast television station and thus has no "permit" or "license" that can be revoked by the FCC (damn pesky legal technicalities). Second, even if Fox was FCC-licensed, we also have a little thing in this country called the First Amendment, which would not permit a government entity such as the FCC to go around making licensing decisions based on content-based political and ideological considerations.
But apart from those reasons, that was a great suggestion by the good professor! And I don't blame him for overlooking those things, either. I think it would be very unfair for me to hold a law professor to the standard of actually having a basic grounding in the law. I mean, what would be next? Requiring doctors to go to medical school or something?