Like many others, I have long been troubled by the fact that the Supreme Court does not allow TV cameras or live audio coverage of the cases it hears.  I know all the arguments against live video or audio coverage and I find them all quite unconvincing when weighed against the public’s right to hear the oral arguments and decisions that will have such a direct bearing on their lives and liberty. We should be allowed to see, or at least hear, these arguments and decisions as they happen.

Anyway, as I was reading through an article today in Broadcasting & Cable about how “C-SPAN Seeks Oral Argument Tapes in Fox Swearing Case,” I couldn’t help but think about how particularly ironic it was that our nation’s highest court would be considering one of the most important free speech cases in decades — FCC v. Fox — and it yet wouldn’t be allowing any of us to listen in live when it takes place on November 4th! If we are lucky, the Court might grant C-SPAN expedited access to the tapes of the arguments, but it may be that we have to wait many weeks to hear what was said.

Seems silly to me. Worse yet, it means I will have to camp out in front of the Supreme Court the night before and freeze my butt off in the hope of getting a seat in the courtroom to hear the live argument! Which brings up the final bit of irony I always like to point out about restricting cameras and microphones from courtrooms: Why are they letting anyone in the courtroom at all if they so fear instantaneous public access to the arguments?

Just FYI, the latest update of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now live. The new version, Version 3.1, provides minor updates to all sections of the book and a new appendix of relevant research in the field. I issue major updates early each year and 1 or 2 tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety market and debate.

For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past two years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

Another chapter in the seemingly never-ending saga of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998 was written this week when the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling striking down COPA, which would require Web operators to restrict access to large amounts of online speech and expression. [The Third Circuit’s full decision is here. And I penned a 3-part series on the lower court ruling by Judge Lowell Reed Jr., senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, here, here, and here].

The DOJ will likely appeal the decision, yet again, to the Supreme Court. I can’t be certain, but I know of no other free speech-related law that has made THREE trips to the Supreme Court for review. (If readers know of any laws that can match that record, please let me know). It really is quite amazing, and even a little outrageous, when you think about it. After all, just think of all the time, energy and money that has gone into this 10-year legal fiasco. I know it is the DOJ’s job to defend congressional enactments before the courts, but how might we have spent that time and money if all this litigating wasn’t going on?? Regulation always has opportunity costs and in this case those costs have been 10 years of wrangling among lawyers. Those resources could have been used to educate parents and kids about online safety; to create and disseminate more and better private screening tools; and so on. Alas, we instead have mounds of paper piling up in the courts and millions being spent with nothing to show for it. Anyway, Declan has an excellent summary of the 3rd Circuit’s ruling here, and my friends at CDT have a statement here. But Susan Crawford has the best analysis of the decision in her essay on “Understanding COPA’s Journey.” She begins by summarizing the key findings:

The Third Circuit yesterday announced a host of reasons why COPA is insufficiently narrowly tailored, many based on the terms of the statute. The coverage of the HTM [“harm to minors”] definition is vague, the court felt, and so publishers won’t be able to tell in advance whether their operations are all subject to the COPA constraint (what if only a tiny portion of a web site has arguably HTM material on it?) or what fits within the HTM definition (are you supposed to be protecting 3 year-olds as well as 16 year-olds?). The court also found that having to implement credit card, debit account etc. shields would burden the providers of free web sites whose operations are nonetheless “commercial” and so covered by COPA. This was another instance of insufficient tailoring. But the key element here is that the Third Circuit held that the government had to carry the burden of showing that filters were less effective than COPA, and it failed to do that. In fact, it appears that filters are both less restrictive and more effective than the operation of the statute, based on extensive findings of fact by the district court below.

So, what will the Supreme Court say about that argument when COPA makes its unprecedented 3rd appearance before the judges? Susan says:

This approach may be difficult for the current Supreme Court to agree with. It was difficult enough the last time. The analytical framework adopted by the Third Circuit follows what Justice Kennedy said then – that it is the Court’s job to consider what alternatives are out there in the world to help parents, and to decide whether they’re more effective/less restrictive than COPA. The point, Justice Kennedy said, is to is ‘‘to ensure that speech is restricted no further than necessary,’’ not to consider ‘‘whether the challenged restriction has some effect in achieving Congress’ goal, regardless of the restriction it imposes.’’ So the court’s job is not to ask whether COPA would provide government with another tool to address harmful speech in the name of protecting kids. That standard would justify any restriction on speech. Instead, the inquiry should be ‘‘whether the challenged regulation is the least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives.’’ Right now, filters are more effective and less restrictive than COPA (or, at least, the government didn’t prove that they weren’t), and so the government loses. Never mind that filters are voluntary and that a lot of parents choose not to use them – that’s the parents’ choice. Filters are available. The government’s argument to the Third Circuit, and probably to the Supreme Court, will be that this is a maddeningly flawed analytical approach. The government would like to see a more protective, quasi-parental approach (on the assumption that parents are busy shoring up the failing economy and can’t be counted on to be watching their kids or caring what they see). Justice Breyer was very sympathetic to that view the last time around. His point is that filtering doesn’t count as an alternative to COPA. (‘‘The presence of filtering software is not an alternative legislative approach to the problem of protecting children.”) Doing nothing, legislatively, will always be less restrictive than doing something. He also thinks COPA isn’t much stronger than the Miller obscenity test and would only modestly burden adult access to legal adult speech. Veteran SCT-watchers will count noses, in this case as in Fox v. FCC, and try to figure out what will happen next. Last time around, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Stevens, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg, all of whom are still there. Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Scalia filed a dissent, as did Justice Breyer, who was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist (now Roberts) and Justice O’Connor (now Alito). So maybe the 5-4 will stay in place. But if Thomas goes over to the dissenting side, and Justice Breyer’s analytic approach (”what do you mean, filtering is an alternative?”) gathers steam, COPA could survive its third trip to the SCT and be upheld.

So, it remains to be seen whether the third time is the charm for the DOJ and they are able to finally convince the Supreme Court to enforce COPA. And Susan is right in noting that all eyes will be on the decision in Fox v. FCC since that will be the next major free speech case before the Court.

As Susan rightly concludes: “This case is a big deal because it turns on the question whether private, edge-based solutions to speech issues should be taken seriously. I think they can, and I don’t want to see a lot of government tinkering with the sources of speech…. Let’s hope the government drops the COPA effort, which has now stretched on for almost ten years.”

Indeed.

Here’s a good article by Declan McCullagh on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo’s outrageous vendetta against Usenet. The article is good not only because yours truly is quoted.

I’ve been looking, and haven’t found a single advocate from the left or critic of Comcast’s network management practices that has said a word of support for Comcast on this subject. This is where Internet freedom is really in peril – and nothing?

Early in 2007, I started penning—but somehow failed to continue—a series of essays about how I was troubled that so many Democrats and liberal intellectuals appeared to be abandoning their First Amendment heritage. As I pointed out at the time:

The idea that the Democrats are the party of free speech and the great protectors of our nation’s First Amendment heritage has always been a bit of a myth. In reality, when you study battles over freedom of speech and expression throughout American history you quickly come to realize that there are plenty of people in both parties would like to serve as the den mothers of the American citizenry. That being said, it is generally true that there have been a few more voices in the Democratic party willing to stand in opposition to governmental attempts to regulate speech in the past. But I’m starting to wonder where even that handful of First Amendment champions has gone. Sadly, examples of Democrats selling out the First Amendment are becoming so common that I’ve decided to start a new series to highlight recent examples of Dems actually leading the charge for increased government regulation of speech and expression. I want to stress that I’m not trying to pick on Democrats here, rather, I’m just trying to point out that–unless there is a sea change in their approach to these issues by Democrats in coming months and years–both parties now appear to be singing out of the same pro-regulatory hymnal. This constitutes an ominous threat to the future of free expression.

This seems like a good time for me to pick this theme back up because later this fall, the Supreme Court is set to consider FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which could become the most important First Amendment-related court case since FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which just turned 30 years old last week.

Amicus briefs are starting to be filed in the matter, and you won’t be surprised to hear that several social conservative, pro-regulatory activist groups have already petitioned the Court to uphold the FCC’s authority to censor broadcast television and radio content. What is surprising, however, is the lack of liberal groups or Left-learning intellectuals engaging in the matter. One would hope that at least a few lefties would file in opposition to over-zealous FCC regulation of speech. Sadly, however, to the extent any liberals have filed so far, it has largely been in an effort to undercut the argument broadcasters are putting forward in defense of their First Amendment rights, or to encourage the Court not to touch other regulatory sacred cows of the political Left—namely the Supreme Court’s 1969 Red Lion decision and FCC’s ambiguous “public interest” authority to comprehensively regulate media markets. Consider this filing submitted by several liberal activist groups like Free Press, New America Foundation, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Participatory Culture Foundation, Acorn Media Foundation, as well as a couple of academics, like Susan Crawford and Monroe Price. These are some of the leading lights of the Left on communications and media policy.

With the Fox case, we have, quite possibly, the one major chance in a generation to make profound statement about the role of the FCC in policing speech in society. And what do these leading intellectual lights of the Left do in their 42-page brief to the court? They relegate the First Amendment to the equivalent of a footnote in the matter. The First Amendment is barely even mentioned in this filing; it is an afterthought.

Instead, they make everything subservient to saving Red Lion and maintaining the FCC’s authority to comprehensively regulate media markets. Red Lion, you will recall, is the Supreme Court’s historic 1969 decision legitimizing the hideously misnamed “Fairness Doctrine.” Of course, it also serves as the foundation for just about every other sort of media regulation that the FCC enforces: i.e., ownership restrictions, educational TV mandates, advertising restrictions, political advertising mandates, must-carry rights, and so on. The lynchpin of the Red Lion decision is the scarcity doctrine. In essence, the court held that the supposed scarcity of media outlets (or at least broadcast spectrum licenses) somehow justified comprehensive regulation of the media marketplace.

Liberals have long been in love with Red Lion and continue to rely on the case in one filing after another before the FCC and the courts in support of their efforts to justify existing or proposed media regulations. Of course, in light of the explosion of media options and competition, Red Lion and the “scarcity doctrine” have become utterly intellectually bankrupt rationales for regulation. But that hasn’t stopped the Left from pinning all their regulatory hopes on the doctrine and attempting to breathe new life into it at every turn.

Even more troubling is the fact that their filing argues that the Internet is some how touched by Red Lion. “[Q]uestioning Red Lion,” they say in their brief, “could throw media, spectrum, and Internet policy into chaos.” (p. 15) Excuse me? The Internet will be thrown into chaos if Red Lion is altered or abandoned by the court in the Fox case? I wasn’t aware that Red Lion had suddenly empowered the FCC to regulate this abundant medium known as the Net!

I won’t belabor this point about the scarcity rationale being dead and Red Lion being bad law, instead I’ll just refer you to the last major thing that the FCC said on the matter. Three years ago, the FCC published a staff report by John Beresford, an attorney with the FCC’s Media Bureau, entitled, “The Scarcity Rationale for Regulating Traditional Broadcasting: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed.” That title pretty much says it all, but Beresford went on to say: “[T]he Scarcity Rationale for regulating traditional broadcasting is no longer valid” and from there laid out a devastating case against Red Lion and the scarcity rationale. Calling the scarcity rationale “outmoded” and “based on fundamental misunderstandings of physics and economics,” Beresford went on to show why just about everything the FCC every justified on this basis was misguided and unjust. He points out what countless economists have concluded through the years, namely that:

(1) the scarcity the government complained of was “largely the result of decisions by government, not an unavoidable fact of nature.” In other words, the government’s licensing process created artificial scarcity.

(2) a system of exclusive rights would have ensured more efficient allocation of wireless resources.

(3) even if there ever was anything to the scarcity doctrine, there certainly isn’t today in our world of information abundance.

Anyway, you get the point. Even people working at the FCC don’t take Red Lion or the scarcity rationale seriously anymore! Why then do these liberal academics who filed in the Fox case? They would be better served by shifting their regulatory rationales away from the hopelessly ambiguous and intellectually bankrupt “scarcity rationale” and toward an antitrust-based form of analysis based on market power considerations. But it is precisely because Red Lion provides them so much more regulatory wiggle room that they remain wedded to such a discredited theory. One wonders how long that farce will continue.

Regardless—and getting back to my main point here—it is absolutely shameless that these liberals would use this rare occasion to file a brief before the highest court in the land and not bother defending the First Amendment and free speech rights. We know we can’t trust the Right to defend the First Amendment, but the fact that the Left is abandoning it too is really troubling.

PFF has just releasing an updated edition of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.” The new version, Version 3.0, includes two new appendixes and updates to each section to reflect new parental control tools and programs developed in the last nine months.

The updated report is timely as it comes on the heels of the recently-announced Internet Safety Technical Task Force, which is being chaired by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. I am privileged to serve as a member of the Task Force, which is evaluating various online safety technologies and strategies and then reporting back to state attorneys general with our findings.

Those issues and much more are covered in the latest edition of my report. The report explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

Version 3.0 of the special report, now over 200 pages, contains over fifty exhibits and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. A greatly expanded section on video empowerment technologies has also been included. Finally, two appendices have also been added: a comprehensive legislative index cataloging over thirty bills introduced in Congress on these issues (complied with John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology), and a glossary of 35 relevant terms and cases.

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, as are the previous editions. And I am happy to provide hard copies to those who are interested.

PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.

This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf

With the release last month of its report on Violent Television Programming and Its Impact on Children, the FCC teed up the issue of regulating televised violence and tossed it over to Congress with a recommendation that lawmakers go ahead and swing for the fences. And Congress appears ready to oblige, although not necessarily in the way some at the FCC had originally envisioned.

You will recall that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin used the FCC’s violence report as another opportunity to engage in his monomaniacal, Moby Dick-like quest to impose a la carte regulation on cable and satellite operators. Martin argued that “Requiring cable and satellite television providers to offer programming in a more a la carte manner would be a more content neutral means for Congress to regulate violent programming and therefore would raise fewer constitutional issues.” But it doesn’t appear that the chairman is going to get his whale this time around.

Ted Hearn of Multichannel News reported yesterday that the bill that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is ready to introduce in the Senate on this front will not include language imposing a la carte regulatory regime on cable and satellite operators. For reasons that remain unclear, Sen. Rockefeller is opposed to the concept.

But that doesn’t mean that cable and satellite operators are off the hook. Overall, the new bill is expected to look a lot like a similar measure that Rockefeller floated along with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) in the last Congress. That bill, S. 616, the “Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005,” proposed a significant expansion of the FCC’s powers in terms of regulating both “indecent” and “violent” programming. So much so that when I wrote about the proposal in this 2005 PFF white paper, I concluded that it represented “the most significant congressional effort to regulate speech since the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996.”

It appears that the new Senate measure will likely propose imposing a time-channeling mandate on cable and satellite operators similar to what broadcasters already face for indecent material. Under existing regulations, broadcasters have to channel such programming to the “safe harbor” hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Apparently, the new Senate bill will broaden that time-channeling mandate to include “excessively violent” programming and then extend the requirement to multichannel video distributors.

Ironically, Chairman Martin could actually be correct in assuming that a la carte regulation “would raise fewer constitutional issues” than the sort of time-channeling approach that Rockefeller and other Senators appear ready to endorse. Some scholars have noted that Congress and the FCC could try to sell the courts the notion that a la carte mandates represented pure economic regulation and, therefore, it would not raise serious constitutional / First Amendment scrutiny. That’s utter rubbish, of course, as Chairman Martin’s repeated comments about the issue have made clear. He and others argue that a la carte is the ideal regulatory instrument to “clean up” cable and satellite TV. So there are clearly some First Amendment issues at stake. (I wrote about all this in another white paper: “Moral and Philosophical Aspects of the Debate over A La Carte Regulation,”)

We may never know which argument the courts would accept about a la carte regulation if Congress doesn’t mandate it, and frankly I’m happy about that since a la carte represents one the most potentially destructive industrial policy schemes imaginable. While the courts were trying to determine its constitutionality, the wonderful diversity of programming on television could be decimated if the rules remained in effect while legal challenges were pending.

Regardless, with time channeling / safe harbor regs there’s just no way that Congress or the FCC can sell them to the courts as anything other than a direct effort to control content on television. Needless to say, proponents would have a huge constitutional challenge on their hands minutes after the bill was signed. I’d bet my house that the affected industries would seek an immediate injunction and get it. And then another long legal battle would ensue. If you want to see how that would play out, read this white paper I asked First Amendment expert Robert Corn-Revere to write for PFF two years ago: “Can Broadcast Indecency Regulations Be Extended to Cable Television and Satellite Radio?”

Bob knows a thing or two about this issue since he successfully litigated the case of United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000). In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a law that required cable companies to “fully scramble” video signals transmitted over their networks if those signals included any sexually explicit content. Echoing its earlier holding in Reno v. ACLU, the Court found that less restrictive means were available to parents looking to block those signals in the home. Specifically, the Court argued that:

[T]argeted blocking [by parents] enables the government to support parental authority without affecting the First Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners—listeners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of receipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests.

More importantly, the Court held that:

It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a consumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go perfectly every time. A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail to act.

This is an extraordinarily high bar the Supreme Court has set for policymakers wishing to regulate modern media content. Not only is it clear that the Court is increasingly unlikely to allow the extension of broadcast-era content regulations to new media outlets and technologies, but it appears certain that judges will apply much stricter constitutional scrutiny to all efforts to regulate speech and media providers in the future, including broadcasting.

In sum, regulation can no longer be premised on the supposed helplessness of households to deal with content flows if families have been empowered and educated to make content determinations for themselves. That means that any legislative effort imposing time-channeling regulations on multichannel video providers is likely to be struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, we’re probably going to be forced to endure a protracted, expensive, multi-year legal battle to get to that inevitable conclusion.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, our kids are watching video on the Internet, iPods, PlayStation Portables, DVD players, and cell phones. One wonders what Congress and the FCC think they are accomplishing when they propose “Leave It to Beaver”-era regulations like this.