Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology
The Federal Communications Commission is a drag on progress in telecommunications and a threat to free speech. It often comes in for criticism, as it did this week at the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s Aspen Summit. But it has never been more enthusiastically criticized than by Dr. Gene Scott.
The video game industry’s string of unbroken First Amendment court victories continued this week with a win in the case of Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger. [Decision here.] In this case, the VSDA and the Entertainment Software Association brought a suit seeking a permanent injunction against a California law passed in October 2005 (A.B.1179), which would have blocked the sale of violent video games to those under 18. Offending retailers could have been fined for failure to comply with the law.
The court’s decision overturning the law was written by Judge Ronald Whyte and it echoed what every previous decision on this front has held, namely:
This week, the Senate Commerce Committee will apparently be considering S. 602, the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which was introduced by Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) earlier this year. The measure marks an important turning point in the ongoing battle over content regulation in the Information Age–in one way for the better, but in some other ways for the worse.
The measure wisely avoids direct content regulation and instead focuses on empowering families to make media consumption decisions on their own. Unfortunately, the measure seeks to accomplish that goal through government actions that could have potentially troubling regulatory implications, especially because of the First Amendment issues at stake here. Specifically, S. 602 opens the door to an expansion of the FCC’s authority over media content on multiple platforms and threatens to undermine private, voluntary rating systems in the process.
I have just released a brief analysis of the measure discussing these concerns. This 5-page paper can be found online at:
http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.17pryorchildsafetyviewingact.pdf
Good piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday by Dennis Patrick (former FCC Chairman) and Thomas Hazlett (former FCC Chief Economist) on the Fairness Doctrine. In their editorial entitled, “The Return of the Speech Police,” they argue that the Doctrine represented “well-intended regulation gone wrong” and that “re-imposing ‘fairness’ regulation would be a colossal mistake.” The continue:
The Fairness Doctrine was bad public policy. It rested on the presumption that government regulators can coolly review editorial choices and, with the power to license (or not license) stations, improve the quantity and quality of broadcast news. Yet, as the volcanic eruption triggered by repeal amply demonstrated, government enforcement of “fairness” was extremely political.
Evaluations were hotly contested; each regulatory determination was loaded with implications for warring factions. The simple ceases to be easy once government is forced to issue blanket rules. What public issues are crucial to cover? How many contrasting views, and presented by whom, in what context, and for how long? The Fairness Doctrine brought a federal agency into the newsroom to second-guess a broadcaster’s editorial judgments at the behest of combatants rarely motivated by the ideal of “balanced” coverage.
As Braden mentioned, we were both down in Raleigh, North Carolina this week testifying at a big hearing on mandatory age verification for social networking sites.
It was quite a heated battle. The legislation, SB 132, was supported at the hearing by North Carolina attorney general Roy Cooper, several of his staff attorneys, a couple of NC senate lawmakers, and some folks from Aristotle, a company that claims it has devised a workable age verification solution for social networking purposes. A vote on the proposal was delayed and we’re still awaiting the final outcome.
Down below, I have attached the outline of my remarks in which I argued that age verification mandates would actually make kids less safe online. Here’s why:
PFF has just released Version 2.2 of my book, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.” It can be found online at: http://www.pff.org/parentalcontrols
As promised when we launched book last month, we plan on making ongoing updates available to ensure that the report offers a timely, comprehensive snapshot of the amazingly diverse marketplace of parental control tools and methods, as well as the ongoing state of child safety efforts.
Toward that end, Version 2.2 offers the following updates:
* over 20 new color exhibits or screen captures that highlight the many excellent websites or products on the market to help parents better manage media;
* a new section on how the “power of the purse” and sensible media budgeting can serve as the ultimate parental control strategy;
* a short section of good books on Digital Age parenting and online child safety;
* various other additions, clarifications and improvements to many other sections.
If you have other suggested additions, updates or corrections, please let me know. Version 2.3 of the book is already in the works!
Comm. Daily had a good article on July 16, “Republican Fairness Doctrine Measure Sidetracked,” concerning a measure that would have blocked the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine:
Durbin rejected an amendment to the defense authorization bill (HR-1585), offered by Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minn., that would block the FCC from reinstating the doctrine that was banned in 1987. Durbin favors reinstatement, which has provoked an uproar among Republicans fearful the doctrine would be used to shut down conservative talk radio, Coleman said. The fairness doctrine required broadcasters to present balanced viewpoints on controversial issues (CD July 2 p1).
Conservative talk radio has flourished because the market “says ‘I want to listen,'” Coleman said, and consumers have a choice — they can turn off the dial. But government should not be regulating content, he argued: Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would be a “very, very bad idea.” Durbin said Americans should hear both sides of a story since the airwaves are public property: “What if the marketplace does not provide opportunities to hear both points of view?” Durbin mused whether a government role would then be appropriate.
The imagery that you see here on the TechLiberationFront site is a clever little rhetorical flourish, I think. We’re mostly free-market types, but our Maoist-Soviet-Che Guevara-ish imagery skewers the idea that the political left has a lock on revolutionary ideas, dissent, civil liberties, and – oh, I don’t know – gusto.
So I’m delighted to find a Web site in a similar vein from none other than the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They have a site up called StopLiberalCensorship.com, which carries a revolutionary (if partisan) message:
Free speech is under attack.
As Democrats in Congress eagerly line up to legislate what you hear on the radio it begs the question: what’s next? Newspapers? There’s no end in sight to their power grab.
It’s about the Fairness Doctrine, the idea of requiring media to apportion their messages and content based on political judgments and direction. James Gattuso and other TLFers have rightly criticized it in spades. Adam specifically called out Democrats’ abandonment of free speech here.
The site seeks people to sign a petition saying that “Republicans should do everything in their power to defeat the Democrats’ attempts to trample our First Amendment rights.”
It’s a welcome turn of the tables to see Republicans on the barricades – in berets, perhaps? – defending freedom. Viva la revolucion!
S. 1748, the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 is the Senate bill to abolish the Fairness Doctrine.
Update: Here’s the vote on an amendment to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine. Forty-seven Democrats (and the independent who caucuses with the Democrats) voted against it.
Today, the Well Connected Project of the Center for Public Integrity is excited to launch an issue portal jointly with Congresspedia. This issue portal is a wiki, like Wikipedia, creating a collection of articles on telecom, media and technology policy, in a single location. Anyone can read, write and edit these articles.
This issue portal builds on the great telecom and technology reporting done by the members of the Well Connected Project staff. This venture into collaborative journalism is a first for our project. It adds a new element to our investigative journalism endeavor. First of all, we have the Media Tracker, a free database of more than five million records that tells you who owns the media where you live by typing in you ZIP code. If we win our lawsuit against the FCC, we’ll also include company-specific broadband information in the Media Tracker.
Second, our blog features dozens of quick-turnaround stories on the hottest topics in telecom and media policy. Recent stories have broken news on the battle over 700 Megahertz, on the lobbying over the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger, and also over copyright controls on electronic devices. We also do investigative reports – like this one about Sam Zell, the new owner of Tribune Co. – that build on the data that is freely available in Media Tracker.
Now, with the addition of this Congresspedia wiki, our project aims to incorporate citizen-journalism on key public policy issues near and dear to the blogosphere. These are issues like Broadband availability, Digital copyright, Digital television, Regulating media content, and Spectrum are at the core of what techies care about in Washington. We hope you will add others articles, too. In fact, I’ve already started my own wish list: articles about Patent overhaul legislation, Media ownership, the Universal Service Fund, and Video franchising. Our reporters can summarize these issues and debates, but so can you.
Take a crack at them!
Fresh on the heels of Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s (D-W.Va.) show trial hearing about “violent TV” in the Senate Commerce Committee two weeks ago, Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has just announced he would be proposing two new amendments that would seriously roll back the clock on broadcast industry regulation. According to a report in today’s Broadcasting & Cable,
“Brownback, a member of the Senate Appropriations committee, said Tuesday that he will offer two amendments to a general government appropriations bill Thursday, July 12, one that would “continue support for the FCC to fine broadcasters who air indecent, profane, or obscene content,” and another that would “fine broadcasters for airing excessively violent content during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience.”
Before getting into the substance of these measures, a word about the process. I find it more than a little troubling that Senator Brownback is attempting to legislate on sensitive constitutional matters like this through the appropriations process. It seems to me that any measure that cuts to the core of an industry’s First Amendment rights should not be snuck into a bloated spending measure in order to get it passed. But hey, who cares about the Constitution… this is about “protecting children”! Right? Well, actually, it wouldn’t do that either.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
