For many years broadcast regulation was accomplished through the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," which required that "both" sides of an issue be afforded equal time. In practice, of course, issues often have more than two sides, and the two sides presented on radio or television were usually framed in such a way as to rule out non-statist alternatives, thus eliminating expression of any meaningful dissent. For example, an editorial might argue that prayer in the public schools should be prohibited; equal time would be given to "the other view" that such prayer should be permitted. The non-statist alternative—namely, that public schools should be replaced with a system of private schools and free choice (cf. pp. 4.11:146-7)—would simply not be considered. If we try to imagine the oppressive consequences of imposing a similar "Fairness Doctrine" on books or newspapers, it becomes clear that such a policy is grossly inconsistent with our conception of freedom of expression.

The widespread, docile acceptance of broadcast regulation illustrates not only the dangers of concrete-bound thinking, but more specifically the pitfalls in not specifying freedoms in terms of property rights. In a free society, broadcast freedom is accomplished through the private ownership of airwaves (where property titles are delineated by frequency bands and/or geographical areas), just as printing presses, paper, and other means of publishing are privately owned today.