New at Reason

David Weigel | June 7, 2006

Jacob Sullum explains the ins and outs of the Senate's craven broadcast indecency legislation, and whether it means you'll be able to watch "Deadwood" anymore.

Comments

|6.7.06 @ 8:40AM|#

Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas) agreed that "it's not fair to subject over-the-air broadcasters to one set of rules and subject cable and satellite to no rules."

So, let me get this straight. Congress has the right to regulate broadcasted content because it uses the public airwaves. Congress also has the right to regulate content delivered by cable or satellite because it competes with broadcasted content.

By that logic, is there any content that Congress can't regulate?

|6.7.06 @ 8:50AM|#

crimethink,

No. Please post quickly, because the Internet needs to be shut down, too.

csixty4|6.7.06 @ 8:52AM|#

crimethink:

No, because the TV signals can cross state lines.

|6.7.06 @ 9:38AM|#

"Barton said he would join Stevens in supporting the extension of content restrictions to cable and satellite "if we can work out the constitutional questions.""

Would that be by stacking the Supreme Court with Judges who do not read the Constitiution.

US Consumer|6.7.06 @ 10:05AM|#

By that logic, is there any content that Congress can't regulate?

Categorically, I don't think you can look to Congress to constrain its own powers. I wonder how libertarian Roberts and Alioto are when it comes to smut.

Those who remember the 90s will remember what happened when Congress tried to get indecency off the Internet the first time.

Hug a lawyer today, etc, etc

dave w. aka US Consumer|6.7.06 @ 10:07AM|#

sorry about the nameswitch. trying not to do the nameswitching thing anymore, esp since people have been gracious about letting me speak my peace on this forum lately without threatening to get up in my private life.

|6.7.06 @ 10:33AM|#

Since the broadcast standards are predicated on the (stupid) idea that the government owns the airwaves, wouldn't regulation of cable and satellite television imply a sort of de facto nationalization of the infrastructure of those outlets?

Before people start screaming, I do not mean a literal nationalization. I'm referring more to a conceptual change than anything physical.

James Anderson Merritt|6.7.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Two reasons for the FCC to exist:

1. Stations can interfere with each other across state lines.
2. At one time, our ability to use spectrum space was very limited, and our government decided that it needed an agency to act as gatekeeper and custodian of that potentially crowded commons.

In the modern era, interference is (or can be) minimal, and the spectrum space (not counting satellite or cable) can accommodate many more outlets than we have daily and weekly newspapers. So the scarcity argument (at least as compared with the constititionally protected "press") is bogus.

My conclusion: if we need any FCC at all, it should only concern itself with the adjudication of interference (trespass) disputes. Electronic media are as much the "press" as the hardcopy media, and should operate under the protection of the First Amendment.

|6.7.06 @ 11:57AM|#

I think it is time to set up buisness outside the U.S. that would stream television and entertainment to Americans over the Internet.

You could probably set up shop in Canada, so long as you were not streaming the shows to Canada (after all, the Canadan government explicitly has the constitutional power to regulate the content of all media... but they probably wouldn't bother you if the media was going to non-Canadians...).

But people are definitly going to be hungering for real entertainment when the government takes over the media.

|6.7.06 @ 1:46PM|#

Roberts and Alito don't have a libertarian bone n their body. They are right wing Catholic conservatives.

|6.7.06 @ 4:34PM|#

This is how bad broadcast TV has gotten: recently on one of the local 11pm newscasts, there was some story about cattle, and they blurred out the cow teats.

If broadcasters are going to be that weak in the knees, I don't care if they get fined billions. There's plenty of other sources for news and information. They can go fuck themselves.

|6.7.06 @ 5:26PM|#

"they blurred out the cow teats"

Come to think of it, it HAS been a while since I've seen a cow teat on television.

If this legislation passes, I'm going to assume that the Federal government intends to pick up the tab for my cable bill, seeing as how I'm all powerless to prevent myself from seeing cow teats and other offensive material.

James Anderson Merritt|6.7.06 @ 6:03PM|#

"'they blurred out the cow teats'

"Come to think of it, it HAS been a while since I've seen a cow teat on television."

You don't live in California, then, or you don't watch much TV. The latest "Got Milk" commercials feature "Da Iry" -- ruler of the two-legged worker beings of Earth -- who is begged by vaguely Vulcanoid aliens to provide them with her "white wonder tonic." To see the entire series, check out the following website:

www.planetinneed.com

(HINT: Once you are through the warp-speed cow introduction and the Emperor's introduction, click through to the Planetary System. Then mouse over the planets until you find the one that shows the transmitter tower ... click that planet and behold the gallery of streaming video segments... All hail Da Iry!)