March 2005

An Indecent Proposal: Expanding FCC Speech Controls to Cable

by on March 2, 2005

Ten years ago, when the GOP first took control of Congress, there was much excited talk about abolishing the FCC. Its days were numbered, many thought.

Ten years later, those numbers look pretty large. Rather than talk of shrinking the FCC, two key GOP leaders yesterday said they would expand it. Sen. Ted Stevens–chair of the Senate Commerce Committee–told a group of broadcasters that he wanted to extend the agency’s control over “indecent” speech to cable and satellite television. Rep. Joe Barton–his House counterpart, agreed.

Continue reading →

SHARE:

First Thing We Do Let’s Fire All The Lawyers

by on March 2, 2005

No one ever said there wouldn’t be losers from the planned MCI-Verizon merger. Among the most hard-hit, apparently, will be lawyers. The Legal Times reported recently that the merged firm is expected to “slash” its legal team, which includes 357 in-house attorneys, plus countless others in outside firms. The carnage might not stop there, as the Times quotes one lawyer saying: “Every firm that has a telecom practice is going to get squeezed.”

One problem is that, in addition to the normal sort of legal work any firm has, telecom companies have long devoted enormous resources litigating and lobbying against each other. MCI has been especially lawyer-dependent, with much of its business plan since 1996 dependent upon regulatory largesse. With this year’s mergers, that industry civil war may be be over, or at least be less intense. That’s good news for consumers–as the industry may actually be able to focus on serving customers rather than legal papers.

The heart breaks, however, for the JD’s that might be left behind. Perhaps an EsquireAid concert could be organized…

SHARE:

He’s got dreamy eyes, and it was only manslaughter…

by on March 1, 2005

This would be funny if it weren’t true:

Instead of competing head-to-head with his rivals in the business world, [True.com owner Herb] Vest has veered into the political world by pressing for new laws that would put True.com’s competitors at a severe disadvantage.


Vest has managed to convince legislators in states including California, Texas, Virginia, and Michigan to sponsor bills that would target rival dating sites like Match.com, Yahoo Personals, Spring Street Networks, craigslist and eHarmony.


Those sites would be required to stamp this stark warning atop every e-mail and personal ad, in no less than 12-point type: “WARNING: WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED A FELONY-CONVICTION SEARCH OR FBI SEARCH ON THIS INDIVIDUAL.”

On second thought, it is funny, regardless.


The online-dating service True.com, no surprise, does perform such background checks–for felony and sexual convictions–while rivals like Match.com do not. But as Declan McCullagh reports, True.com’s background checks can be easily foiled: just provide a fake name. Any felon searching for love (or an easy mark) online should be able to figure that out.


Interestingly, the legislation, as proposed in California, would apply to any “social referral services,” including social networking sites (e.g., Friendster) and conceivably even message boards. Social software, a broad field now thriving with startups and energy, would be severely hamstrung. Could garage-stage entrepreneurs really afford to screen all their users? Would they want to?


So anyway, besides all the obvious concerns, there are two other problems with this particular proposal, assuming it could be made to work.


First, are mandatory background checks really in keeping with the free-for-all nature of the ‘Net? For many online flirts, a certain sense of freedom would be lost.

And second, shouldn’t consumer preferences matter? Should anyone visiting this site (or one of the many like it) really be forced to pay for a background check?

In the end, McCullagh’s conclusion is spot-on: “Leave love alone. It has enough problems flourishing without ‘help’ from politicians.”

SHARE:

So Now You Tell Us!

by on March 1, 2005

Is Steven Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan” too hot for broadcast television? That’s the question that ABC affiliates were asking themselves–and the FCC–back in November of last year as they readied to show the film on Veteran’s Day. The FCC was on an indecency-fine rampage–rhetorically, at least–and no broadcaster was interested in paying out fines or putting its broadcast license at risk.


You may remember the FCC’s response then to broadcasters’ inquiries. The agency said that it was barred from making a decision before the broadcast “because that would be censorship.” But said a spokesman, “If we get a complaint, we’ll act on it.”


No surprise, a number of ABC affiliates dropped the film despite having shown it, to great appreciation, on prior Veteran’s Days.


Well, those affiliates that did show “Private Ryan” last year can now breathe easier. Just yesterday, over three months after Veteran’s Day, the FCC has rendered its ruling:  “In light of the overall context in which this material is presented, the commission determined that it was not indecent or profane.”


So how is this any different, in terms of censorship, than if the FCC had said the same thing three or four months ago? Beats me. Of course, if the FCC had made its decision months ago, those affiliates that opted for tamer programming on Veteran’s Day could have shown “Private Ryan.”


The FCC seems to think that if it doesn’t rule beforehand what’s acceptable and what isn’t that it’s not really censoring. But this premise is a bit flimsy. Facing vague indecency standards and the real threat of fines or worse, broadcasters will do the censorship themselves and, as with “Private Ryan,” may misjudge the FCC and withold perfectly decent programming. This isn’t voluntary compliance; it’s a chilling effect.


So should the FCC just go ahead and censor? It’s an unattractive choice, but it might be more honest than status quo’s de facto censorship. Would the FCC be flooded with inquiries from the networks, which would want every show to be FCC-approved? Surely, but that comes with the territory of vague content standards. And anyway, would it really be so different regular floods of complains from special-interest groups, on both sides of the cultural divide, that require investigation and, sometimes, post-facto punishment?


All this should be food for thought for those who wish to make the FCC’s response to programming judged “indecent” even harsher. With greater fines, stations will become even more cautious, and while that may cut down on poor-taste programming, worthwhile shows, like “Private Ryan,” will be affected, too.

SHARE:

Next Entries →