The way speech is regulated in the United States depends greatly on the medium. Broadcasters such as television and radio stations fall under the oversight of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which enforces rules against slander, obscenity, and indecency on public airwaves. In contrast, social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and TikTok operate in a far less regulated environment, primarily governed by platform policies and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This article explores the FCC requirements for broadcasters when it comes to slander, explains the difference between slander and libel, and highlights why social media content is treated differently.
What the FCC Requires From Broadcasters
Broadcasters operate on the public airwaves, which are considered a limited public resource. Because of this, they must meet licensing requirements and adhere to content regulations. While the FCC does not directly regulate slander cases, it does set standards for fairness and truth in programming. Broadcasters can face consequences if they knowingly air false statements that damage a person’s reputation. The FCC requires licensees to operate in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.” This includes preventing defamatory speech on programs, particularly during live broadcasts. If slander occurs, a broadcaster may be exposed to civil liability and, in extreme cases, face FCC scrutiny if such actions suggest a lack of control over programming. Unlike private conversation, broadcasting slander is magnified by its reach, which is why the FCC emphasizes responsibility.
Slander vs. Libel in Broadcasting
Slander refers to false spoken statements that harm a person’s reputation, while libel refers to false written or published statements. In broadcasting, the spoken word over radio or television is often considered slander, though in some legal contexts it may be treated as libel since it is recorded and disseminated. Broadcasters must be particularly careful in live settings such as call-in shows, interviews, and unscripted segments. For example, if a guest makes a knowingly false statement about an individual, the station could face a lawsuit if it fails to issue corrections or exercise editorial oversight. This is why many broadcasters use time-delay mechanisms to filter out inappropriate or defamatory content.
The Fairness Doctrine and Its Legacy
Historically, the FCC also enforced the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present controversial issues in a balanced way. Although the Fairness Doctrine was abolished in 1987, its legacy still influences broadcasting ethics. The underlying idea was that because broadcasters use public airwaves, they owe viewers truthful and balanced coverage. While slander laws are enforced through courts rather than the FCC, the expectation remains that broadcast licensees must avoid reckless disregard for the truth.
Social Media and Section 230
Unlike broadcasters, social media platforms are not licensed by the FCC. Instead, they operate under a legal framework established by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 grants platforms immunity from liability for content posted by users. This means if a user publishes defamatory statements on X, Facebook, or YouTube, the platform itself cannot generally be sued for slander or libel. The user who created the content may face legal consequences, but the platform is shielded. This legal distinction creates a massive difference in accountability. Broadcasters are responsible for nearly everything they air, while social media companies are treated as “neutral hosts,” even though in practice they use algorithms to amplify certain content.
The Problem of Scale and Enforcement
Broadcasting is finite: only a set number of radio and TV frequencies exist, and each licensee is monitored by the FCC. By contrast, social media operates at an infinite scale. Millions of users publish content simultaneously across platforms, making real-time oversight impossible. The FCC has no jurisdiction over social media platforms, which means content moderation is left to company policies, community guidelines, and in some cases, international law. For example, platforms often remove slanderous posts only when flagged by users, whereas broadcasters are expected to prevent defamatory content before it reaches the airwaves.
Case Examples in Broadcasting
There have been several high-profile cases where broadcasters faced lawsuits for slander or defamation. For instance, if a local news anchor falsely accuses a business owner of fraud without evidence, the station could be sued for damages. The FCC might also review whether the station demonstrated irresponsibility in meeting its license obligations. In political broadcasting, candidates have additional protections. Broadcasters cannot censor legally qualified candidate ads, but they also cannot slander opponents directly without exposing themselves to liability. This creates a narrow but important balance between free speech and reputation rights.
Case Examples in Social Media
On social media, slander cases rarely involve the platform itself. Instead, lawsuits are directed at individuals who posted defamatory statements. However, enforcing judgments can be difficult, especially when anonymous accounts are involved. Social media companies may cooperate with law enforcement in cases of criminal threats, but they rarely intervene in civil slander disputes. This has led to criticism that platforms spread misinformation and defamation with few consequences. Unlike broadcasters, they cannot lose an FCC license, because no such regulatory oversight exists.
Calls for Reform
As misinformation spreads online, some lawmakers and regulators have called for reforms to Section 230. Proposals include narrowing immunity so platforms can be held accountable if they algorithmically promote slanderous or harmful content. Critics argue that the current system creates a double standard: broadcasters face strict responsibility for slander, while platforms that reach billions of users face little risk. Proponents of Section 230 argue that removing immunity would crush free speech online and burden platforms with endless lawsuits.
Key Differences Between Broadcasters and Social Media
To summarize:
-
Broadcasters are licensed by the FCC and must operate in the public interest. They are legally responsible for defamatory statements aired on their stations and can lose licenses if they repeatedly fail in oversight.
-
Social media platforms are shielded by Section 230. They are not legally responsible for user-generated slander, though they may remove content under their policies. Liability generally falls on the user.
-
Enforcement is proactive for broadcasters but reactive for social media, where slanderous content often spreads before being removed.
Conclusion
The FCC’s role in regulating broadcasters ensures that slanderous or defamatory speech is minimized on public airwaves. Broadcasters must exercise editorial judgment and maintain control over their programming or face serious consequences. Social media platforms, however, operate under an entirely different framework that largely absolves them of responsibility for slanderous user content. This difference reflects both the historical nature of broadcasting as a scarce public resource and the modern challenge of regulating billions of online voices. Whether Congress revisits Section 230 or strengthens slander protections in the digital era remains a subject of ongoing debate.