In selecting my article, I pivoted at decision time from an article that was influential in my development as a scholar to one that has recently begun to strike me as particularly relevant to ongoing policy debates about social media platforms, despite falling a bit out of favor over the years. With that brief preface, I’ll begin my revisiting of Lee Bollinger’s 1976 article, and attempt to make the case that his defense of the regulatory distinctions that separate print and broadcast media in the United States may be useful in developing a regulatory framework for social media that is distinct from the rest of the Internet. Bollinger starts from the premise that there are both First Amendment benefits and costs associated with government intervention in the media sector. The benefits Bollinger focuses on are derived from the role that the government can play in ensuring “the widespread availability of opportunities for expression within the mass media.” Consequently, the partial regulatory system that emerged (with a regulated broadcast sector and unregulated print sector) is one that “captures the benefits of access regulation yet still minimizes its potential excesses.” Bollinger contends that, in upholding government intervention in the broadcast sector as constitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States “pursued the right path for the wrong reasons.” Specifically, the logic and rationality of this bifurcated regulatory framework did not have to be justified on the basis of any unique characteristics of broadcasting, such as spectrum scarcity (as it has been,

中文翻译：

---

哥伦比亚大学博林格公司，《新闻自由与公共获取：建立大众传媒的部分监管理论》，载《密歇根州立大学学报》（Mich.L.Rev.1），第75页，1976年。

在选择我的文章时，我将决策时间从对我作为学者的发展有影响的一篇文章转到最近开始令我感到震惊的那篇文章，尽管该文章有点失宠，但这篇文章特别与正在进行的有关社交媒体平台的政策辩论有关这些年来。首先，我将回顾一下李·博林杰（Lee Bollinger）在1976年发表的文章，并试图证明他捍卫将美国印刷媒体和广播媒体分开的监管区别可能对建立社会监管框架很有用。与Internet其余部分截然不同的媒体。Bollinger从这样的前提开始，即第一修正案的好处和与政府干预媒体部门相关的成本。布林格关注的利益来自政府在确保“大众媒体中广泛表达机会的机会”中可以发挥的作用。因此，出现的部分监管系统（具有受管制的广播部门和不受管制的印刷部门）是“获取访问管制的好处，但仍将其潜在过剩最小化的系统”。博林格认为，在维持政府对广播业的干预符合宪法的原则下，美国最高法院“出于错误的理由而选择了正确的道路。” 具体而言，不必根据广播的任何独特特征（例如频谱稀缺）来证明这种分叉的监管框架的逻辑和合理性。