[EAS] Why "Voluntary"

[Sean Donelan]

On Sat, 9 Jul 2016, Bill Ruck wrote:
> This is why CONELRAD, EBS, and EAS must be "in voluntary cooperation".
>
> He believes that the presidential finding making his pronouncements
> mandatory could be protested and ultimately made null in
> court.  Likely the same with mandatory testing.

As the famous Oliver Wendell Holmes metaphore goes, the First Amendment 
doesn't cover yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  Does that mean a 
theatre owner has a First Amendment right not to have an operational
fire alarm in a crowded theater, because the fire alarm is "compelled 
speech?"

Since 1951, the FCC has maintained the position "This is a voluntary 
system on the part of the industry, and I think they are to be commended 
for it. We may, under our act, take people off the air, but we may not 
tell them what to do on the air, so to that extent it is voluntary." 
(Robert E. Lee, FCC Commissioner, 1953-1981.)

Lawyers like making arguments. And lobbyists and policians like 
blustering. But for industry and government, the real argument since 1951 
for CONELRAD, EBS, EAS, etc has been what do we say "The Day After."

Although the sinking of the Titanic wasn't the cause of the Radio Act of 
1912, most of it was written before the Titanic sank but no action had 
been taken. The Titanic disaster did provide the public attention and 
imperative for establishing federal laws for radio communications.  The 
role of communications in the safety of life and property has been part of 
essentially every Federal communications law since then (47 USC 154(o)).

Industry and government know they both lose "The Day After" debate.

So all sides "voluntarily" negotate what they must do, and hope there 
never is "The Day After."  In the mean time, lawyers will debate the role 
of the First Amendment, War Powers of the President, Interstate 
Commerce powers of the Federal Communications Commission, and Eminent 
Domain in the context of public airwaves and public right of ways.