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.
Brookfield limo Midway .. Lockport Chicago limo O’HareThe official figures are staggering: 35% of the workforce -... Read More
This is the second of a series of four articles... Read More
Wealth Distribution is often discussed at length in periodicals such... Read More
Handing over power to Vladimir Putin in 1999, Boris Yeltsin... Read More
Industrial Recruiting. The absence of a state income tax in... Read More
With new environmental technologies and modern efficiency methods in mining... Read More
Most citizens agree that we need the Federal Trade Commission... Read More
Some call it the "unofficial" or "informal" economy, others call... Read More
Many environmentalists are against roads through the forest because it... Read More
User BaseThe non-US and non-English Web segments have been boosted... Read More
Well we have certainly been reading a lot about prison... Read More
The Iranian elections are certainly interesting indeed. The ruling party... Read More
The original vulgarity was bylined: ?The Constipation of America's Mid-East... Read More
United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), one of the most... Read More
The cause of America is in a great measure the... Read More
The Randolphs:Peyton Randolph was the first President of the United... Read More
As a result of the conflict analysis exercise and a... Read More
Expected new applications for Mexican trucks to enter the US... Read More
As concerns grow over the threat of bioterrorism and weapons... Read More
It never fails to amaze me. HM Customs and Excise... Read More
I am noticing an increasing and alarming rate to which... Read More
The predominant discussion in the Indianapolis media over the proposed... Read More
The entry by telephone and cable companies into the Internet... Read More
China is serious about breaking into the bio-tech field and... Read More
It cities across America water is an issue, the flow... Read More
Medinah cheap limo ..Just because we have been leading the World in innovation... Read More
The great people of the United States of America deserve... Read More
The official figures are staggering: 35% of the workforce -... Read More
Well many have complained that the FBI and CIA dropped... Read More
Americans pride themselves on being the best, that's a fact.... Read More
Iran has threatened to raise America's fuel prices again. They... Read More
September 11, 2001 could have been prevented. We could have... Read More
The expertise and advancement of the evolution of man and... Read More
Any chances for a country to be ruled by alternative... Read More
Every conflict has its economic moments and dimensions. The current... Read More
Perhaps a silent revolution is taking place, this time more... Read More
The US Dollar has been falling continuously in last year.... Read More
Societies have always had a problem of what to do... Read More
Much of our personal and cultural perspective on the world... Read More
Aspartame activists are constantly being attacked because all data are... Read More
Let's make one thing clear: This Dan Nelson Automotive fiasco... Read More
Recently I got to talking with a gentleman at a... Read More
It cities across America water is an issue, the flow... Read More
As you can see from some of our previous articles,... Read More
One of Abraham Lincoln's claims to fame is the fact... Read More
Throughout all recorded history on our lovely little planet, Earth's... Read More
Many of those who wish to fight for our country... Read More
A SOLUTION FOR EMPLOYMENT PROBLEMS TO AID IN THE FIGHT... Read More
Having redundancies and today's technologies in transportation we have protected... Read More
30 years ago, California, later followed by other states, decided... Read More
Political |