THE PUBLIC SQUARE SHOULD NOT REQUIRE A SUBSCRIPTION.

JUSTICE · POLITICAL JUSTICE

Published by Langhorne P. Breedlove

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 · 1:02 AM ET

Tags: Political Justice · Public Access · Digital Media · Free Expression · Civic Information

Dear fellow American proletariat: There was a time when an ordinary resident could borrow a television camera, walk into a community studio, and put a program on the local cable system. It might be a city-council forum. It might be a cooking show. It might be an astonishingly confident man explaining a theory about parking meters. Democracy, in all its magnificent weirdness, had room for the lot.

Today a person can broadcast from a phone, yet finding the public meeting, the local arts program, or the recording of a decision that affects their neighborhood may require three social-media accounts and the patience of a medieval monk. American Proletariat proposes rebuilding public-access media for the internet age: accessible local production, open civic-video libraries, community training, and independently governed distribution that does not depend on the favor of a commercial algorithm.

THE MANDATE

Create a network of digitally accessible public, educational, and governmental media services. Participating communities would offer equipment, studios, instruction, captioning assistance, archive storage, live and on-demand civic video, and transparent pathways for residents and community organizations to publish lawful material. Local governments could use dedicated channels for meetings, emergency communication and public records; educational institutions could provide instruction and student work; public-access spaces would remain open to lawful community expression under clear, fairly administered rules.

These are three related but distinct functions. A mayor's official announcement is government communication. A school-produced science lesson is educational media. An independent resident's criticism of the mayor is public-access speech. The system should identify each category visibly so viewers know who speaks, who funds the production, and whether it represents an official institution.

Participation should not require expensive hardware, a broadband subscription, a studio membership fee, or proficiency with professional editing software. Design for phones, libraries, community centers, captioned and audio-described video, transcripts, multilingual access where feasible, and accessible alternatives for people who do not use the internet.

ROOTS · WHEN CABLE HAD A PUBLIC DOOR

Congress enacted the Cable Communications Policy Act in 1984. Its framework, codified in 47 U.S.C. § 531, permits local franchising authorities to require channel capacity designated for public, educational, or governmental—PEG—use in certain cable franchise arrangements. The provision also addresses use rules and limits a cable operator's editorial control over those channels (Source 01).

Federal cable law separately limits franchise fees to 5% of an operator's gross revenue derived from cable-service operations, with statutory distinctions for certain PEG capital costs and other charges. The funding arrangement is not a general federal tax on all internet streaming services, and the existing law does not magically give every community a publicly financed video platform (Source 02).

The point of the old public-access model was not that everyone deserved a network-television career. It was that a community should have the means to show itself to itself. An ordinary resident could learn to produce rather than remain only an audience to people who could afford the equipment, the distribution, and the advertising.

THE LAW IS NOT THE SAME AS THE TECHNOLOGY

In Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, decided June 17, 2019, the Supreme Court held that a private nonprofit operating public-access cable channels was not, merely by operating them, a state actor bound by the First Amendment. The Court drew a distinction between government restrictions on speech and editorial decisions by private operators. The ruling did not abolish public-access channels or decide every possible statutory access obligation (Source 03).

That distinction should shape the new system from its first line of code. A government-run forum may be subject to constitutional limits on viewpoint discrimination; a privately operated service has different legal considerations depending on its structure and arrangements. We should not promise complete editorial freedom, then quietly appoint a committee to decide which opinions sound sufficiently patriotic.

The proposal would specify public-access and government-speech roles, published eligibility criteria, content rules, documented moderation decisions, notice, appeals, and independent review. It would prohibit using public grants or access rules as a pretext to favor the governing party's candidates or punish protected criticism. It would not oblige the platform to publish threats, unlawful exploitation, doxxing or other unprotected or lawfully restricted material.

WHO GETS THE CAMERA?

Local access must be more than a website with a submission button. We propose publicly supported production training, bookable equipment, accessible studios, community partnerships, remote submission tools, and assistance for people with disabilities, older residents, students and communities without established media organizations. Residents should be able to produce a neighborhood-history series, a local debate, an arts performance, a school project or a public-safety explainer without needing a production company.

A useful system would allow creators to retain their work and grant clearly defined distribution permissions. Consent and release rules must protect minors and vulnerable people. Archiving should preserve dates, authorship or source institution, version history, corrections and access restrictions where legally required.

Neither the wealthiest donor nor a political officeholder should decide what counts as an interesting community story. Access could be scheduled through transparent capacity rules and equitable rotation, with public explanation when studios, staff or bandwidth become scarce.

THE CIVIC LIBRARY THAT DOES NOT VANISH

A digital public-access system should maintain searchable recordings of local meetings, public hearings, planning deliberations, educational events, emergency briefings and community-produced programs. Recordings should include reliable titles, dates, speakers where lawful and verified, accessible transcripts, captions, subject tags, multilingual summaries when appropriate, and links to the underlying agenda or public record.

Not every government meeting can lawfully be recorded or published without limitation. Closed sessions, confidential student records, protected personal information, court restrictions, copyrighted media and other privacy obligations require specific treatment. The archival rule must distinguish an accurate public record from a demand to expose private lives.

Preservation matters. A community's own productions can disappear when a station closes, a platform changes policies, a server contract ends, or somebody loses the only hard drive. The long-term plan should include durable file formats, redundant storage, migration schedules, clear retention policies, and public discovery that outlasts a single vendor.

ACCESSIBILITY IS A DESIGN REQUIREMENT

In 2024 the Department of Justice issued a Title II ADA rule addressing accessibility of state and local government web content and mobile apps. A 2026 interim final rule extended the compliance deadlines to April 26, 2027 for larger public entities and April 26, 2028 for smaller entities and special districts, subject to the rule's terms and exceptions. The standard generally incorporates WCAG 2.1 Level AA (Source 04).

A civic-video library must plan for captions, transcripts, appropriate audio descriptions, keyboard access, screen-reader compatibility, adequate contrast, and low-bandwidth alternatives. A video that cannot be understood by a deaf resident or navigated by a blind resident is not a complete public-service success. Automatic captions can be a starting tool; quality assurance remains necessary for names, emergency instructions and public proceedings.

Access also means libraries, schools and community organizations offering in-person help. Digital media cannot replace a paper notice or telephone line in circumstances where residents cannot reliably get online. AP's proposed universal basic internet and mobile service is a related but separate policy, with its own funding and delivery questions.

KEEP THE PUBLIC ACCESSIBLE, NOT GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED

The governance design should separate operations, funding, and content decisions. A local independent nonprofit, public institution, or other lawful operator could administer production facilities under transparent agreements. Public entities would retain responsibility for their official records and required accessibility. The editorial and moderation arrangement must be analyzed under the operator's legal status, funding conditions and First Amendment constraints.

Create published rules for recording and uploading, eligibility, scheduling, campaign activity, paid promotion, corrections, harassment, privacy, appeals, accessibility, and archival changes. Make moderation records auditable without publishing sensitive personal information. An elected official should not be able to order the disappearance of a critical resident's video merely because it made the next council meeting uncomfortable.

A strong objection is that public funding can encourage political interference or subsidize irresponsible material. Those risks are real. Independent governance, neutral access rules, transparent costs and narrowly tailored lawful content restrictions are more defensible than pretending a government can guarantee freedom of expression simply by naming its platform 'Freedom.'

HOW WE BUILD IT

Begin with an inventory of existing PEG centers, local public-media archives, schools, libraries and government-video systems. Identify existing staff, equipment, public records, contracts, available cable-franchise revenue, accessibility gaps and preservation risks. Pilot regional partnerships before financing a separate studio and software stack for every municipality.

The platform should support live and recorded distribution, public-event calendars, searchable archives, creator training and open export formats. Where reasonable, require interoperability so local communities can move their content without being held hostage by one vendor. A regional system may be more economical for rural areas; large cities may need multiple neighborhood studios and languages.

New legislation may be necessary to create durable federal grants, coordinate public-educational-governmental access with modern digital delivery, and protect independent administration. But digital distribution should not be financed by casually extending cable franchise fees onto unrelated internet services without legal authority. The existing statutory franchise fee and PEG rules have specific limits (Sources 01, 02).

THE TEN-YEAR LEDGER

The public fiscal model should distinguish studio facilities, cameras and microphones, training, salaries, accessibility services, legal compliance, cloud storage, cybersecurity, archive preservation, software, bandwidth, regional assistance and capital replacement. Include the recurring expense of storing decades of video rather than pretending a hard drive is a one-time promise to history.

Identify genuine local franchise revenue available under law, new legislative appropriations, philanthropic support with independence safeguards, school or library cost-sharing and other permissible sources. Do not count existing commitments twice or treat a possible savings in commercial advertising as federal revenue.

Costs depend on how many communities participate, the amount of existing equipment reused, language and accessibility needs, archive sizes, staffing standards and governance choices. The proposal does not yet have a responsibly modeled national ten-year total. Publish pilot costs per production hour, per community served, per accessible archived hour and per completed training program before scaling.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

A public platform can become an official propaganda channel, a poorly moderated harassment system or an expensive digital museum that no one can navigate. Small towns may lack staffing; content could become inaccessible; archival costs could escalate; copyrighted recordings could be uploaded without rights; and politically controlled funding could chill speech.

Others may question why public money should support video production when private streaming sites exist. The relevant policy distinction is between private commercial distribution, which can change terms or priorities, and a public-interest system designed to guarantee local participation, accessibility and archival responsibility. Whether the public benefits justify the expenditures must be measured, not assumed.

Build an appeals process, independent audits, neutral usage statistics, cybersecurity controls, disaster recovery, privacy and copyright procedures, and a clear exit strategy for failed vendors. If a local platform becomes the mayor's personal television station, it has missed the assignment by approximately the entire First Amendment.

MEASURING SUCCESS

Report unique local producers, training completion, public meetings archived, timely captioning and transcript quality, program diversity, access for underserved communities, response to complaints, accessibility conformance, preservation integrity, cost per production, public discovery and voluntary audience use. Explain the denominator and limitations of every statistic.

No one is required to enjoy every show. That is part of the point. A public square is not an algorithm trained to make everybody watch the same thing.

We are not proposing that the government tell Americans what to think. We are proposing that Americans have more opportunity to speak, listen, document their communities and challenge government without paying admission.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

01 · U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel — 47 U.S.C. § 531, Cable Channels for Public, Educational, or Governmental Use. https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-120/t47/s531/

02 · U.S. House Office of the Law Revision Counsel — 47 U.S.C. § 542, Franchise Fees. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A47+section%3A542+edition%3Aprelim%29

03 · U.S. Supreme Court — Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 587 U.S. 802 (2019). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/17-1702

04 · U.S. Department of Justice — Fact Sheet: Web Content and Mobile Apps Accessibility Rule, updated April 2026. https://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/

05 · University of Washington Civil Rights Compliance Office — Audio and Video Accessibility Guidance. https://www.washington.edu/civilrights/policies-and-guidance/ada-guidance/digital-accessibility/audio-and-video/

10 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES, ESSAYS & POLICIES

→ Explore Where Did Public-Access Television Go—& Can We Rebuild It Online?

→ Explore Modern Public-Interest Broadcasting

→ Explore Restoring Public Media

→ Explore Global Ocean Restoration

→ Explore Redesign the Faces of American Currency

→ Explore PROGRESSIVES

→ Explore LIBERTARIANS

→ Explore Cultural Labor & Celebrity

→ Explore Monarchy, Empire & Historical Powers

→ Explore FEDERALISTS

WE ARE ONE.  ·  E PLURIBUS UNUM.