This is a very difficult thing to do since the state has been actively in the process of controlling the media for more than 100 years in the United States. Th

This is a very difficult thing to do since the state has been actively in the process of controlling the media for more than 100 years in the United States. The entire point of the FCC was not to enforce the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and ensure that with modern communication technologies those rights could be preserved. Instead that organization was built with the mindset of destroying the first amendment protection on freedom of speech and instead flipping it around to grant people the freedom to listen. Well NPR the PBS get cranky over the tag Elon musk wants to put on their Twitter the reality is anyone who is granted a license by the FCC to broadcast is some sort of state-backed media. While defenders made point out that limited broadcast bandwidth necessitated something like the FCC to ensure that this limited space was protected I don't buy that that's a sufficient argument to destroy and gut the first amendment. Even if I was to accept that that one limited resource could be preserved in part for large media companies why did the FCC so regulate the citizens band or the band's reserved for shortwave radio and the people's use. The really sad thing is those individuals using those frequencies that are reserved for the people are often the staunchest defenders of the onerous regulations around using them directly in violation of the core principles of the first amendment. This is exactly what people warn about when they say the slippery slope. 100 plus years ago when radio was first a thing and we needed to decide how to regulate the airwaves and the bandwidth available no one could envision the idea of effectively unlimited communications bandwidth. So they trotted down the path of ignorance and this is what we're left with a legacy that says the state can absolutely choose the media.