Articles by Adam Thierer 
Senior Fellow in Technology & Innovation at the R Street Institute in Washington, DC. Formerly a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, and a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
There’s a crowd of people who still run around lamenting the death of the old UNE-P regulatory regime. They persist in their misguided belief that infrastructure sharing somehow offers us the path to broadband nirvana.
It’s all quite silly, of course. Forced sharing doesn’t lead to true infrastructure innovation or competition. Indeed, it leads to the exact opposite: technological stasis and plain vanilla networks. If you want real competition and innovation, you have to give carriers the incentive to invest in (and upgrade) their own networks with the promise that they will be able to reap the rewards of positive growth should it occur.
Still, the critcs persist, we’ll never have any real competition without some degree of infrastructure sharing. Nonsense! Let me cite a little statistical and anecdotal evidence to explain just how wrong the infrastructure socialists are.
Continue reading →
In an editorial in CableFax earlier this week, Senator Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued that: “Our government should not be in the business of choosing which programs are appropriate for our nation’s children. By showing the public how to use available blocking mechanisms, we ensure those in the best position to make viewing decisions–parents–are able to do so.”
Senator Stevens is absolutely correct. And, luckily, there are more blocking and filtering tools available to parents than ever before to achieve this goal. In my new Progress & Freedom Foundation study, “Parents Have Many Tools to Combat Objectionable Media Content,” I document the many tools or techniques that parents can use to restrict or curtail objectionable content in their homes before they call upon government to do this job for them. Perhaps the most troubling thing about calls for media regulation to protect children–especially when those calls are coming from conservative lawmakers or groups that otherwise stress individual responsibility over government intervention–is that it ignores the fact that parents have many better and more constructive alternatives to government regulation at their disposal. This study lays out these options–for ALL media sectors and technologies–in great detail. Also, the appendix to the paper also includes a “handy tip sheet” for parents searching for ways to combat objectionable media content in the home or keep kids safe online.
In striking down the Communications Decency Act in
Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court declared that a law that places a “burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving” the same goal. This paper proves that many such “less restrictive alternatives” are available to parents today to help them shield their children’s eyes and ears from content they might find objectionable. Thus, we need not turn to Uncle Sam to play the role of surrogate parent.
The paper is attached above as a PDF file or can be found online here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.9contenttools.pdf
If you’re interested in more on this subject, here’s a list of related PFF research:
Continue reading →
This week, the self-appointed moral guardians for the masses over at The Parents Television Council gave its “Seal of Approval” to “The Chronicles of Narnia” even though it contains, in the PTC’s words, “Realistic, graphic and violent King Arthur-like battle scenes with axes, swords, and hatches. Beheadings, stabbing and wounding is rampant during the fight scenes.” Moreover, at one point in the movie the PTC notes that “Susan and Lucy witness Aslan’s murder and go to the body after he is dead. Also, the moments before he is killed are cruel, sadistic and humiliating as his mane is clipped off and he is tied up and dragged up the steps to the stone table where he is killed.”
Despite this, the PTC states that “The over-all and continuously uplifting message of this fine film, far outweighs any negative content” and awards it its Family Seal of Approval. The PTC’s website says that “This award is given to worthy television programs, made-for-TV movies, motion pictures, video games, and advertisers that help parents by providing/sponsoring entertainment suitable for the entire family.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. PTC routinely asks the FCC to censor much less violent fare that appears on network TV, but “beheadings, stabbing and (rampant) wounding” is “suitable for the entire family.” Seems a little inconsistent to me.
You should also check out their review of ABC’s new remake of “The Ten Commandments,” which they blast mostly because it presents a more realistic, faithful interpretation of Biblical events. Here’s my favorite line from the review: “While ABC’s ‘The Ten Commandments’ incorporates incidents normally overlooked and is technically more “accurate” to the details given in the Bible, it completely lacks any sense of respect for or understanding of the Biblical story.”
Rebecca Hagelin of the Heritage Foundation recently posted a column about video games on TownHall.com that I think deserves a response. Ms. Hagelin is concerned about video games being “murder simulators” and recounts the story of one youth who killed several people last year and who also happened to play a lot of “Grand Theft Auto”
No doubt, the Devin Moore story that Ms. Hagelin uses to make her case against video games is quite sad and troubling. Before blaming video games for his behavior, however, a serious social analyst needs to weed out a host of other social / environment factors. For example, it was revealed at last week’s hearing on video game regulation that this young man was the product of a broken home and was apparently subjected to severe child abuse. Apparently his father beat both him and his brother several times a week and also forced them to work long shifts (over 16 hours at a time) at his janitorial business. Such factors need to be taken into account when evaluating what made this boy commit such heinous crimes. Yet, Ms. Hagelin ignores these facts in her essay.
But there are other facts ignored here too. I recently penned a study on the many myths and misperceptions driving the push for video game regulation in America today, including Sen. Hillary Clinton’s bill (“The Family Entertainment Protection Act”). The 30-page analysis (“Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation”) can be found at the Progress & Freedom Foundation website at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf
The general conclusions of my research are as follows:
Continue reading →
In my recent paper on “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Games,” I pointed out that one of the reasons that many lawmakers were stepping-up efforts to regulate video games was because of the supposed failure of the industry’s voluntary ratings system. In particular, many critics claim that the ratings system is not enforced effectively at the point-of-sale.
As a result, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman and Even Bayh argue that federal legislation like their proposed “Family Entertainment Protection Act” is needed to “put teeth in the enforcement of video game ratings” because “young people are able to purchase these games with relative ease.”
Good news: A new survey out by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today shows that the enforcement system is working better than ever before and that it’s not so easy for kids to buy games on their own.
Continue reading →
Unfortunately, as I predicted would be the case in my National Review editorial earlier this morning, today’s hearing on video games in the Senate Judiciary Committee turned out to be quite a one-sided show trial.
Senator Sam Brownback called the hearing to blast the game industry for what he called “graphic,” “horrific,” and even “barbaric” level of violence we supposedly see in games today. Violent video games, he argued, are becoming “simulators” that train kids to behave violently and even kill cops.
And his proof? As I suspected would be the case (and, again, predicted in my editorial) it largely came down to two key games: “Grand Theft Auto” and “25 to Life.” Sen. Brownback decided to show a few clips from these games and one other title (“Postal”) to supposedly illustrate just how violent games are today. Now make no doubt about it, these games do contain some truly sickening, despicable acts of simulated violence. I don’t know why a game developer feels compelled to show thugs beating prostitutes with a baseball bat, or a criminal shooting cops with a sniper rifle, or someone torching a dead corpse and then urinating on it to put out the fire. It’s all very sick and it’s quite sad that someone is squandering their creative talents on the depiction of such disgusting, disrespectful acts of violence.
But let’s get back to the key point and ask a question that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE EVEN BOTHERED DISCUSSING AT THE HEARING. Namely: Are these games indicative of all video games out there today?
Continue reading →
As I’ve mentioned several times before on this site, I’m finishing up a new book on the future of control controls in a world of media convergence. My thesis is simple: Content regulation is doomed. A confluence of social, legal and, most importantly, technological developments is slowly undermining the ability of legislators and regulators, at all levels of government, to control the nature or quality of media programming. The demise of content controls may take many years–potentially even decades–to play out, but signs of the impending death of the old regulatory regime are already evident.
A perfect example of this came today when the WB television network announced that it would be self-censoring several scenes from a new drama that was about to air on its broadcast television affiliates. The network claimed that in light of last week’s decision by the FCC to impose steep new indecency fines on certain broadcast television shows, it was unsure if it’s new drama (“The Bedford Diaries”) would run afoul of FCC indecency “standards.” So the network will be airing a self-censored version of the show next week.
But here’s what’s really interesting: Before that episode is aired on their WB broadcast television outlets, the network has decided to air the unedited version on their Internet website. Starting today, anyone can download the uncut Bedford Files episode and watch on their PC or portable media device for free. According to the New York Times, “It is the first time a network has offered on another outlet an uncut version of a program it has been forced to censor.” But, needless to say, it won’t be the last time this happens in a world of proliferating media platforms.
Continue reading →
I’ve just released a new paper entitled “Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation.” At the state and local level, over 75 measures have been proposed that would regulate the electronic gaming sector in same fashion. More importantly, another new federal bill was introduced recently that would establish a federal enforcement regime for video games sales and require ongoing regulatory scrutiny of industry practices. S. 2126, the “Family Entertainment Protection Act” (FEPA), was introduced last December by Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and Evan Bayh (D-IN) to limit the exposure of children to violent video games.
In my essay, I address several of the most common myths or misperceptions that are driving this push to regulate the electronic gaming sector. My general conclusions are as follows:
>> The industry’s ratings system is the most sophisticated, descriptive, and effective ratings system ever devised by any major media sector in America.
>> The vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes.
>> Just as every state law attempting to regulate video games so far has been struck down as unconstitutional, so too will the FEPA.
>> The FEPA could derail the industry’s voluntary ratings system and necessitate the adoption of a federally mandated regulatory regime / ratings system.
>> No correlation between video games and aggressive behavior has been proven. Moreover, almost every social / cultural indicator of importance has been improving in recent years and decades even as media exposure and video game use among youth has increased.
>> Video games might have some beneficial effects–especially of a cathartic nature–that critics often overlook. And, contrary to what some critics claim, violent themes and images have been part of literature and media for centuries.
I encourage you to read the entire paper for more details. It can be found online here: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf
According to the NY Post, actor Tom Cruise has apparently persuaded Viacom-owned Comedy Central to cancel the rebroadcast of a controversial “South Park” episode about Scientology. He apparently threatened to refuse to promote the Paramount Pictures film “Mission Impossible 3” that is coming out this summer. (Paramount is also owned by Viacom.)
What a fool he is. Top Gun boy has just done more harm to his beloved Scientology religion than he can possibly imagine. By forcing Comedy Central to cancel the showing of that South Park episode poking fun at Scientology, everybody and his brother will now seek that episode out and view it somehow. I bet the episode will be the #1 most downloaded video on the Internet in less than a week. Don’t people ever learn to just ignore stuff that offends them and move on? By making a fuss about it they just draw our collective attention to it. Indeed, I’m going to go check my TiVo right now and see if I recorded this episode. It sounds funny. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Tom!
The FCC dropped a bombshell yesterday when it handed down a set of record-setting fines for supposed violations of its broadcast indecency rules. CBS alone faces over $3.6 million in fines for a single episode of “Without a Trace.” A NBC-owned Spanish-language station faces a big fine as does two other Spanish-language shows. And CBS got nailed again for the infamous Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident. And there were several other fines handed down. Regardless of what you think about the fines, the FCC’s actions yesterday will almost certainly be the start of a major court battle that could result in a historic First Amendment decision when all is said and done.
Modern Indecency Law: About As Clear As Mud
Broadcasters will have a strong case when they get the rules in court. The FCC has steadily increased the scope of its indecency enforcement policy over the past 15 years and created a regulatory regime that is about as clear as mud. The vagueness of the FCC’s indecency regime is clearly on display in the new decision. For example, the agency throws the book at a noncommercial educational station for broadcasting a Martin Scorcese-produced blues documentary with a few F-bombs in it, but then they give Oprah a free pass for a show about the “secret lives of teenagers” that including a detailed discussion of “oral anal sex.” In other words, if a few blues musicians use some salty language during a documentary at 9:30 at night (when most kids are already in bed), the station gets a fine. But if Oprah wants to have an explicit discussion about teenagers’ filthiest sex habits at 4:00 in the afternoon (right when kids are getting home from school), well then the FCC says by all means go right ahead! Does that make any sense?
This epitomizes how convoluted and arbitrary modern indecency law has become. If you want to know how confusing things have gotten over the last few years, consider these examples:
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.