Home
>
Political
>
Doorstops and Paperweights

Doorstops and Paperweights

Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, has come up with what he believes is a brilliant idea. He thinks the FCC should have to the power to hold cable and satellite channels to the same decency standards as over-the-air broadcasters. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Stevens' counterpart in the House, agrees. Each plans to propose bills to that end in his respective house of the U.S. Congress. Many of their colleagues, eager to always be viewed as tough on indecency, are ready to sign on to their proposed legislation. Never mind the fact that the courts have struck down similar legislation in the past. Stevens, doesn't see this as a problem. If he got his wish, Congress would just pass it and then, according to Stevens, "take [the cable and satellite industry] on and let the courts decide."

At the core of Senator Stevens' rationale is the fact that cable and satellite have become almost as ubiquitous as broadcast TV. Over 80% of all U.S. homes now subscribe to cable or satellite TV. In those homes, Stevens and his cohorts would argue, viewers make little or no distinction between subscription channels and broadcast channels, which are right along side each other on the cable or satellite box. Therefore, he feels that they should all be held to the same standard of decency. On the surface, that sounds like a sensible argument. However, there are three major problems with his proposed legislation.

First, unlike broadcast television, people choose to bring cable and satellite TV channels into their homes. This choice is a private contract between the company and the subscriber, delivered over that company's equipment. No one is forced to subscribe to cable or satellite TV. In fact, subscribers pay an ever-increasing subscription price for such a privilege.

Most people, except those who live in mountainous and/or rural areas, can receive broadcast channels over the air with a strong antenna. Even those who live in areas where over-the-air channels cannot be accessed with an antenna can subscribe to a very basic package that includes only their local channels and basic cable channels like The Weather Channel, some home-shopping channels, and one or two religious channels. Decency would never be an issue with any of the aforementioned cable channels, so where is their argument?

The argument against regulating premium channels like HBO, which Stevens wants to include in his legislation, should be a no-brainer. These channels do not come with any basic package and are selected and paid for individually by their subscribers.

But what about the basic channels that come along as part of a "classic cable" and/or "extended tier" package? So far, cable and satellite companies have refused to offer them on an a-la-carte basis and the FCC has ruled in their favor on this matter. Therefore, people are paying for channels like MTV, for example, that many find objectionable. Shouldn't these channels have to abide by broadcast decency standards? No, because people choose to bring these packages of channels into their homes. Now, granted, many of them subscribe to these packages solely because they want access to channels like ESPN, CNN, and Fox News, which are generally not included with the most basic tiers. They couldn't care less about any of the other channels in the package.

In a perfect world, subscribers could select these channels individually without having to pay for a lot of channels they don't want. However, the world is not perfect and life is not fair. To soften the blow, cable and satellite operators have provided a way for parents to block their children's access to channels they deem inappropriate. Regulating indecency on these channels wouldn't accomplish anything that the parental lockouts couldn't.

Second, imposing decency on cable and satellite channels would cripple, or possibly kill, an entire industry. In addition, burgeoning IPTV technologies, which would likely be strapped with the same regulations, would be stymied. Think of the damage it would do to the economy. Thousands would be laid off or not hired.

Many people subscribe to cable or satellite TV because they want access to something that is more edgy and is free to go a little further than broadcast TV. That's the main reason that broadcasters are pushing so hard for decency standards to be extended to cable and satellite. Although they've been trying to compete by pushing the envelope with our own programming since the advent of cable and satellite, they know they are at a disadvantage with the good portion of the public that desire programming with more artistic freedom. If cable and satellite TV were suddenly held to the same decency standards as broadcasters, a huge number of their subscribers would pull the plug. Scores of cable and satellite set-top boxes would be reduced to doorstops and paperweights almost overnight.

Third, and probably most important, the regulating of cable and satellite TV would represent a slippery slope toward other, even more serious kinds of censorship. History has taught us that, without strong restraints, governments will stop at nothing to restrict the free speech and expression of their citizens. These restrictions are often based on rather whimsical criteria.

If government entities can get away with censoring material delivered as part of a private contract by means of privately owned equipment, then what's to stop them from censoring books, videos, newspapers, magazines, and even the internet? The First Amendment, you might say? Well, no, if the First Amendment could be interpreted in such as way as to allow the censorship of cable and satellite TV, our last line of defense would be broken down. Nothing could stop the government, as the flood gates would be opened to just about any kind of censorship they wanted.

Therefore, with the First Amendment having been breeched, we would have a constitutional crisis of monumental proportions. The one that people talked about in reference to Watergate would seem like child's play by comparison. Video stores, bookstores, and libraries could be busted for carrying indecent material, even if it couldn't legally be ruled obscene. Websites could be shut down by the thousands for being deemed a bit too risqu?. If a government official didn't like something you wrote in a newspaper, magazine, or book, you could get slapped with a hefty fine or thrown in jail. Now you might think I'm exaggerating a little and that none of this stuff could ever happen in the United States, but would you be willing to take that chance?

Now, with all of that being said, I seriously doubt that this proposed regulation of the cable and satellite TV will become a reality any time soon. It would be better if the legislation would just pass and the courts would strike it down and thus reaffirm the First Amendment. However, that's not the way I think it will play out. I believe there won't be enough votes because of constitutional concerns on the part of the majority of legislators, so Stevens, Barton, and company will have to back off for now.

What I suspect, though, is that the decency hawks in Congress will try to use the mere talk of regulation to intimidate cable and satellite operators into practicing more "restraint", as Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), a likely presidential candidate in 2008, calls it. However, that's a just a euphemism for "censor yourselves or we still might get back to trying to censor you later." Of course, cowering self-censorship is the most insidious form of censorship there is.

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

house refresh service Morton Grove ..

In The News:

Carnegie Mellon's noninvasive brain technology allows users to move robotic fingers by thinking about the motion, offering new possibilities for people with motor impairments.

Multi-factor authentication (MFA) adds an extra layer of protection to your accounts. Instead of relying only on a password, MFA requires you to verify your identity using two or more methods.

Scientists from Duke, Harvard, and the University of Otago have unveiled a game-changing tool called DunedinPACNI. It uses a single AI brain scan to reveal how fast a person is biologically aging.

A disturbing wave of fake agent phone scams is sweeping across the United States, catching people off guard and draining their savings.

Emojis aren't just playful add-ons; they're powerful tools for building stronger connections in our increasingly digital world.

Google has taken a major step toward the future of clean energy by partnering with Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS), an MIT spin-out working to build one of the world’s first commercial fusion reactors.

If you create and share art online, you might have seen messages warning that Facebook's parent company, Meta, claims the right to use or even sell anything you post, whether it's pictures, poems, or artwork.

Cybercriminals hit Qantas in a major data breach that exposed information from up to six million customers.

Having reliable, loud, and timely emergency alerts on your phone or device is important because when severe weather strikes, every second counts.

Here's how your daily brew is becoming the foundation for greener buildings.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, are transforming how we learn. But what does this mean for AI and learning retention?

Modern AI data centers use much more electricity than traditional cloud servers. In many cases, the existing power grid cannot keep up. One innovative solution is gaining traction: repurposed EV batteries for AI data centers.

Microsoft 365 and Outlook users are being targeted by a tactic that injects fake billing alerts directly into their calendars.

Researchers are now showing us that old smartphones as data centers could be the next big thing in sustainable tech.

Scientists have created micro-robots for sinus infection treatment that can enter the nasal cavity, eliminate bacteria directly at the source, and exit without harming surrounding tissue.

Let's examine how your data is collected in everyday life, who is buying and selling it, what happens to it afterward, and, most importantly, what you can do to protect yourself.

Researchers at the University of Sheffield in the U.K. developed small robots called "Pipebots" that can travel inside water pipes to find and potentially repair leaks, all without any excavation.

A groundbreaking new study has uncovered disturbing AI blackmail behavior that many people are unaware of yet.

Four teams of autonomous humanoid robots competed in China's first AI soccer tournament, demonstrating advanced capabilities in ball detection and independent decision-making.

The ID. Buzz autonomous van features self-driving technology with 13 cameras, nine LiDAR units and five radars after Volkswagen partnered with Hamburg and Uber for 2026 deployments.

Social Security phishing scams use urgency and impersonation to steal personal data. Learn how to spot fake SSA emails and implement 10 protective measures.

French startup Pazzi Robotics created an AI-powered pizza robot that made pies in under five minutes without human help, but it closed in 2022 despite patents and expert partnerships.

Reclaim your time from big tech with effective screen time reduction strategies for iPhone and Android, featuring steps to limit app usage and create phone-free zones.

Amazon Prime Day shoppers face threats from 120,000-plus scam websites as cybercriminals prepare phishing traps and malware ahead of the July sales event.

Fox News' AI Newsletter brings you the latest on this rapidly evolving technology.

Doorstops and Paperweights

Political