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 risqué. 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.

---

Congress Considers National Data Privacy Law

Legislation was introduced into Congress this week that would establish... Read More

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Was created on July 30th 2002, by... Read More

Anyone Awake Out There?

As we reel from the news of the recent bombings... Read More

Trains and the Flow of Fuel

Fuel costs seem to rank high in surveys of US... Read More

North Korea and Diplomatic Solutions; Random Thoughts Part II

North Korea and diplomatic games; something has to give and... Read More

Protecting Children From Porn

There's a new Michigan state register in the works... Read More

Seattle Lawyer and Financial Freedom

We are destroying our freedoms and slowing innovation, due to... Read More

Some Farmers and Organic Growers are Upset at Monsanto

The organic farmers are angry that Monsantos terminator GM seeds... Read More

Using More Trees to Reduce Atmospheric CO2

As global warming continues to escalate the concerns of today's... Read More

The Reconstruction of Europe

The Second World War was the continuation of World War... Read More

Droughts, Dirty Water and Disease

When we go through periods of droughts we also have... Read More

Medicade Scam; Worse than You Think

You are not going to believe what is going on... Read More

Are American Twins - Majority Rule and Public Opinion, Sometimes Just a Couple of Dumbbells?

The idea that the majority shows the will of the... Read More

The Typology of Financial Scandals

Tulipmania - this is the name coined for the first... Read More

Competition Laws

A. THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMPETITIONThe aims of competition (anti-trust) laws... Read More

Enlightenment Experiments

Pierre Dupont de Nemours:After arranging the Armistice that ended or... Read More

Intellectual Property: The ECJ Extends the Use of Trade Marks to Goods and Services

The European Court of Justice ("ECJ") ruled in Praktiker Bau-... Read More

Employment Legislation: Proposed Employment Law Changes - To Take Effect 1 October 2005

Proposed changes to the Sex Discrimination Act ("SDA") 1975 and... Read More

Federal Trade Commission and Dismal Performance on Mergers

Most citizens agree that we need the Federal Trade Commission... Read More

The Fabric of Economic Trust

Economy is called the dismal science because it pretends to... Read More

The Politics Of The American Dream

The American Dream is the promise to have it all... Read More

North Korea and Diplomatic Solutions; Random Thoughts Part I

You know now that North Korea is backing down on... Read More

Foreign Spies Troll Gay Bars in Washington DC for National Secrets

The use of homosexual men in the area of espionage... Read More

The Morality of Child Labor

From the comfort of their plush offices and five to... Read More

The History of Trade and Using it as a Weapon for Peace

The Flow of Trade is a major consideration of civilizations... Read More

Adminstration of E-Business Taxation

The entry by telephone and cable companies into the Internet... Read More

Is The Bill Of Rights Necessary?

The Bill of Rights to our Constitution caused -- and... Read More

Liberalism ? A Mark Too Low A Price Too High

After the dance the piper must be paid. To help... Read More

Computer Cyber virus attack from hackers

Recently the CIA staged a practice simulation of a cyber... Read More

Thinking on Energy

Regarding the de-regulation of energy, this is not such a... Read More

How Futuristic Is Anarchy As A Way To Organize The State (I)

When organising a country or a group of people in... Read More

What Is The Filibuster All About?

The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators... Read More

Tax Dollars and Transparency of Government Agencies

As we watch fewer Americans voting it is no wonder... Read More