In addition to the contingencies presented by social or historical contexts, the regulation of American media must also respond to a particular set of regular or ever-present contingencies unique to the American context.
It may seem strange to you that a factor can be both regular and contingent. Pragmatism itself hinges on a rejection of constants. However, it is important to understand that these factors are regular in their presence but contingent upon one another at any given time.
In other words, government regulation must always respond to these particular factors, and the best regulations balancе them, but the degree to which one is valued over the other varies from moment to historical moment.
The first set of regular contingencies is the tensión between free speech and public interest. The freedoms of speech and press granted by the First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantee the open expression of ideas and the existence of media outlets beyond federal ownership and control.
A media industry that is able to report freely and comment upon events functions as an informal check in the American political system. Taken together, the twin freedoms often give good reason to hold back government regulation that might impede or censor the free circulation of ideas.
At the same time, a completely independent media would quickly fall apart. Prior to the government regulation of the radio industry, different private companies would often use the same airwaves and inadvertently jam one another's signal.
Before the advent of government-regulated telephone service, it was often necessary for families to possess multiple telephones, one for each privately maintained phone network to which they subscribed.
Thus, at times it is necessary for the government to intervene in the interest of the public in order to make a media industry more efficient.
The resulting tension between the regular contingencies of free speech and public interest represents a uniquely American dichotomy that debates about government regulation must always consider.
Typically, the dominant social norms or political climate of the age will direct which concept trumps the other in relation to regulation. Quality regulation, however, should always consider both.
Even though pragmatism rejects constants, why does it play a different role in the American context?