That's a nice little rant you got going there, but the reason the airways are considered "commons" is because there is a finite amount of spectrum, which is ostensibly owned by the public. This limited bandwidth is auctioned off so that broadcasters are not stepping on each others toes and interfering with each others broadcasts. The 2.4Ghz band, for example, is set aside for WiFi, cordless phones (remember those!) and other consumer uses. Other areas are designated for TV broadcasts, AM radio, FM radio, Cellular, etc. If anyone could just blast their transmission on any band they could overpower and interrupt other broadcasts. In fact, that's exactly what pirate radio stations do. Set up a transmitter on some frequency and take over that frequency by overpowering whatever the "legitimate" user of that band is transmitting.
So what's the precedent for "blogger licenses"? I'm as wary of governmental overreach as the next guy, but I'm not seeing the slippery slope your describing here. The FCC "censorship of broadcast radio/TV" came about because of the status of the RF spectrum as publicly owned. It was determined that those using the public space to broadcast messages shouldn't be broadcasting "naughty" stuff. Sure it's puritan nonsense, but done in the same spirit as not having lewd messages on say, billboards or public signage. Unless you're imagining that the FCC is about to nationalize the telecommunications infrastructure I'm not sure where you think they're going to derive the authority to unilaterally censor the internet.