http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20050301\ACQDJON200503011021DOWJONESDJONLINE000448.htm& Just heard Howard Stern talking about this on the radio. I cannot agree with Senator Stevens on this one. Just as bad or worse as when the other side was clamoring for the "Fairness Doctrine".
Sorry about that. Try this one: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=industryNews&storyID=2005-03-01T183605Z_01_N01361889_RTRIDST_0_INDUSTRY-MEDIA-CONGRESS-DECENCY-DC.XML
The Senate shoudl worry about thier own indecency and parents should start being parents - (turn off the G-D TV stupid!) Use the V chip!! The government should not play babysitter because parents are too lazy to do it for themselves.
I don't even have a TV. But I do think that Congress has the Constitutional right and the power to regulate decency on the airwaves. As to whether they should, that's another question.
I think the point is that cable is not over the air. (and the Congress does not have the direct constutional power to regulate decency over the air - that was given to the FCC as part of the Communications Act of 1934) On a different note, the reason that the FCC cannot regulate sattlite radio is that is does not orignate from the US, and it is a paid service. Bottom line: I don't want the government censoring or parenting. They do miserable jobs at both!
OK, I'll restate my point, that's a rather fine distinction you're drawing between airwaves and cable. Congress has the power to regulate all interstate commerce, this is clearly outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Irregardless of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress can pass laws regulating cable or satellite, whether it originates overseas or upon another planet, so long as it affects interstate commerce in the United States of America. Congress actually has the power, if they so choose, to form a new agency for the sole purpose of punishing and imprisoning offenders intercepting forbidden signals. Congress can, if they so choose, even repeal the Communications Act of 1934, or abolish the FCC altogether, although that's not what's being proposed here. My analysis is purely on the basis of what they can or can't do from a Constitutional standpoint, not what they should or shouldn't do in my personal opinion.
The difficulty is whether there is a sufficient government interest in stopping "indecency" in non public fora to justify a prior restraint on speech. I don't know. In the world of commercial radio and TV broadcast, at least some of the justification for this sort of regulation came from the fact that the spectrum is limited and that no one can "own" it; it is a public resource and those allowed to use it do so because it is in the public's "best interest, convenience and necessity". This justifies detailed regulation of how the resource is used. The interstate commerce power to regulate wire telephone and telegraph goes to providers, services, rates, and such. It does NOT extend to "content" except to the extent that some content is itself "contraband", i.e. child pornography. But links in "wire" services are frequently "wireless"... I don't know. It isn't a trivial analysis.
Of course all government regulation is subject to the restrictions of First Amendment protection, prior restraint or not--that's a given. I wasn't trying to suggest that Article One trumps the First Amendment, as my contract law professor used to say: "It's a seamless web."
little fauss Do you remember the debacle of the Internet Decency Act? Not constitutional, even though the content definately went through regulated wires, even though, in fact, the content of concern WAS contraband. This is a nasty question that showed up in a criminal prosecution here...defendant possessed hundreds of child pornography images. Question: without producing an actual CHILD, could the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the images really WERE child pornography? The law remains unsettled but the money is on "No." It's too easy to create realistic images on a computer. No kid, no child porno. Altogether an unsatisfactory situation.
Quite unsatisfactory, and to admit it, I'm more than a little uncomfortable with the legislative branch using interstate commerce or whatever means necessary to regulate increasingly more and more of private citizens' lives and stomp on states' rights; it's as if the 9th and 10th amendments didn't exist. But we differ here, I'm no scholar in this particular area, but my money's on "yes". I agree, an unsatisfactory solution.