speech and press means freedom from any source of restriction or constriction, public or private. Similarly, many believe, or assume, that freedom of speech and press encom- passes an affirmative duty on the part of Congress to ensure that media content meets various criteria, such as fairness or diversity, or that it contains certain features, such as educational and cultural merit, or not contain certain other features, such as obscenity Unless we make an effort to think in an unusually disciplined way, most of us are capable of believing in contradictory things without discomfort, and beliefs about freedom of speech and press are examples. But a central lesson of economics is that, if resources are limited and production is efficient, it is not possible to increase the amount of diversity except by suppressing speech and also reducing consumer welfare. This means that common interpretations of First Amendment"goals"that transcend the original ban on abridgement are, generally, doomed to result both in abridgement and widely accepted economic policy criteria Self-indulgent, sloppy or sentimental thinking by the public, like any other accu- rate portrayal of human behavior, must be acknowledged and accounted for in policy analysis, but has no place in the analysis itself. Policies implementing basic political freedoms must be designed to protect citizens from the tyrannical actions of the British crown obnoxious to the Framers--and still widely practiced, today, in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, we are up to our ears in sentiment when it comes to media concen- tration, and sentiment deeply infects both academic and judicial analysis of the problem The most recent example was the spectacle, in 2003, of political outrage triggered by the FCC's meager proposed reforms of its media ownership rules The background of the controversy is as follows. The Congress in 1996 adopted by large margins a Telecommunications Act(Pub. L No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56(1996)), largely deregulatory and pro-competitive in its language and in many of its provisions The Congress clearly anticipated that increased media competition would lessen the fu ture need for current restrictions on media ownership, which were designed to promote diversity and prevent undue concentration. Accordingly, the new law required the fCc to undertake biennial reviews of its ownership policies and to repeal those no longer neces- sary as a result of competition(1996 Act $202(h)). The FCC understood this to be an in-- 5 - 5 speech and press means freedom from any source of restriction or constriction, public or private. Similarly, many believe, or assume, that freedom of speech and press encom￾passes an affirmative duty on the part of Congress to ensure that media content meets various criteria, such as fairness or diversity, or that it contains certain features, such as educational and cultural merit, or not contain certain other features, such as obscenity. Unless we make an effort to think in an unusually disciplined way, most of us are capable of believing in contradictory things without discomfort, and beliefs about freedom of speech and press are examples. But a central lesson of economics is that, if resources are limited and production is efficient, it is not possible to increase the amount of diversity except by suppressing speech and also reducing consumer welfare. This means that common interpretations of First Amendment “goals” that transcend the original ban on abridgement are, generally, doomed to result both in abridgement and widely accepted economic policy criteria. Self-indulgent, sloppy or sentimental thinking by the public, like any other accu￾rate portrayal of human behavior, must be acknowledged and accounted for in policy analysis, but has no place in the analysis itself. Policies implementing basic political freedoms must be designed to protect citizens from the tyrannical actions of the British crown obnoxious to the Framers—and still widely practiced, today, in many parts of the world. Unfortunately, we are up to our ears in sentiment when it comes to media concen￾tration, and sentiment deeply infects both academic and judicial analysis of the problem. The most recent example was the spectacle, in 2003, of political outrage triggered by the FCC’s meager proposed reforms of its media ownership rules. The background of the controversy is as follows. The Congress in 1996 adopted by large margins a Telecommunications Act (Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996)), largely deregulatory and pro-competitive in its language and in many of its provisions. The Congress clearly anticipated that increased media competition would lessen the fu￾ture need for current restrictions on media ownership, which were designed to promote diversity and prevent undue concentration. Accordingly, the new law required the FCC to undertake biennial reviews of its ownership policies and to repeal those no longer neces￾sary as a result of competition (1996 Act §202(h)). The FCC understood this to be an in-