First Amendment & Free Speech

Initial Thoughts on the FCC’s Revised A La Carte Report

by on February 9, 2006 · 8 comments

It seems that the cable industry has once again become everyone’s favorite public policy punching-bag. The “government-knows-best” crowd is practically foaming at the mouth about the need for “Net neutrality” mandates on cable’s broadband offerings, censorship of speech on various cable channels or programs, and “a la carte” mandates for cable’s video lineup.

On this last item, the FCC has just today released a revised version of an earlier staff report conducted during Chairman Michael Powell’s tenure. The Powell era FCC report revealed that a la carte would raise prices and hurt program diversity. By contrast, today’s report, which new FCC Chairman Kevin Martin requested, argues that the old report got it completely wrong and that a la carte would lead to lower prices and not hurt diversity. So, within the span of 18 months, we have an expert regulatory agency coming to diametrically opposed conclusions on the same issue. (Makes you wonder about those old theories of scientific bureaucracy!) What are we to make of these contradictory results?

Continue reading →

SHARE: 8 comments

Google v. the Chinese Government: Yes, We Will Help You Censor

by on January 25, 2006

At the same time Google is digging in its heels against demands by the U.S. government, it has apparently caved in to demands by the Chinese government, agreeing to censor information available from its search engine in China.

Google reasoned that the move was necessary to allow it to continue operating in China. (Check out the recent discussion here at TLF over the pros and cons of engagement.) And in some ways this will make little difference to users–since China’s government has been blocking offending sites anyway. Still, there’s something unsettling about Google itself taking on the role of censor. And there’s a even more troubling feeling that Google will do the job better than the Chinese ever could.

(For a good discussion of pros and cons of engagement, see the recent debate here at TLF on the issue. Also, searchenginewatch.com has a good overview of the issue here.)

SHARE:

Jim versus Adam on China Censorship–Thoughts

by on January 24, 2006

Jim Harper of Cato has an interesting exchange with Adam Thierer of PFF on U.S. companies doing business in China. Would a “code of conduct” for U.S. firms doing business there help the cause of human rights?

Suppose a firm refused to do business in China, or got booted out for “pushing back” in response to queries from Chinese officials for information on dissidents? It seems to me that there would be other firms ready to step into that market–China being a truly massive market–either Asian firms or U.S.-based firms, or those of some other nation. There might be some gains from the publicity this stance would generate, but like Tianamen Square, the gains might be short-lived.

Continue reading →

SHARE:

A Friendly Conversation about Corporate High-Tech Engagement with China

by on January 23, 2006

(I recently engaged my former Cato Institute colleague and fellow TLF blogger Jim Harper in a dialog about the effectiveness of U.S. engagement with China in terms of broadening human rights and speech rights in particular. I’ve been doing some soul-searching about this recently and asked Jim to help me think through the issue (and the “engagement is good” theory) again. What follows is the transcript of our e-mail exchange. A condensed version of this exchange also appaers on CNET today. – – Adam Thierer)

THIERER: Jim, I must admit, in recent months I have really been struggling with the issue of U.S. corporate engagement / investment in China. In particular, I have been wondering if my long-held assumption is correct: that greater engagement by U.S. companies in China will really help achieve meaningful reforms for its repressed citizenry. I have always argued that investment by U.S. companies – – and technology companies in particular – – could help break down some of the legal barriers to greater economic and social / cultural freedom.

In recent years, however, the reports from the front have not been good. It does not seem the U.S. corporate engagement / investment has really done much to effectuate positive reforms in the post-Tiananmen era. It seems that the Chinese are just as repressive as ever, especially on the political / cultural front. Worse yet, we know that many large American corporate technology leaders have actually assisted the efforts of Chinese officials when they sought to repress speech and dissent. (Microsoft, for example, has made news recently by shutting down a journalist’s blog because of material that might be offensive to Chinese authorities. And Yahoo and Google are coming under fire for playing ball with Chinese officials too.)

Tell me my fellow libertarian friend, are you not also troubled by these developments? Are you still comfortable with our traditional position on the issue?

HARPER: I recall, a few years ago, being very concerned when I heard that Google had come to an agreement with the Chinese government so that their service would not be blocked there. I had a natural sense of revulsion at the thought that any company, much less one of the technology companies that are doing so much to improve life around the world, would get in bed with censors and despots. Google has never been as forthcoming about what exactly they do to appease the Chinese as I would like them to be, so I suppose I am still uncomfortable with it.

But I have come to believe that the best option for a company faced with this dilemma is to accept the ugly conditions some governments put on doing business in their countries. This is for a couple of reasons: There is strong evidence that refusing trade doesn’t help anybody. The U.S. trade embargo toward Cuba has been a dismal failure. We’ve had some level of trade restrictions with Cuba for more than 40 years and, if anything, it has helped Castro by pauperizing the Cubans, demoralizing them, and shielding them from knowledge about the benefits of freedom. Heck, if we had had trade with Cuba the last 40 years, a steady diet of fast food probably would have killed off Fidel by now…

Just as importantly, if you give them the communications tools that these companies provide, the Chinese people will evade government controls and get done what we want them to get done, censorship or no censorship. You don’t have to use words like “falun gong” or “Taiwan” or “free speech” to communicate about liberty and public issues. Before Vaclac Havel was the first President of a free Czechoslovakia, he was a playwright. His plays weren’t political polemics that tweaked the nose of the government and invited censorship (though he got in plenty of trouble). They were subtle critiques of life under the regime. Everybody knew what he was talking about. Freedom had been in the hearts of the Czechs for years when the Velvet Revolution officially delivered it. Technology and communications are enabling this on a broader scale in China. It’s working. You’ll see.

Continue reading →

SHARE:

Do Parents Have the Tools to Control TV Content?

by on January 20, 2006 · 3 comments

As James mentioned in his blog entry yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee held yet another hearing yesterday about “cleaning up” content on broadcast TV, cable & satellite TV, and the Internet too. One Senator after another, as well as some of the typical media critics who get called to testify at these things, made the claim that parents are helpless in the face of all the media that bombards their kids these days. But what’s so troubling about such calls for increased media regulation / censorship in the name of “protecting children” is that it ignores the fact that parents have many constructive alternatives to censorship at their disposal.

Let’s start with some basics.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Adam Carolla, NPR and the F-Bomb

by on January 4, 2006 · 2 comments

Replace Howard Stern? Like him or not, that’s a tall order for CBS Radio (formerly Infinity Broadcasting). In fact, the company chose two people to replace the famously potty-mouthed and popular radio host (who now operates from Sirius satellite radio, safe from the FCC’s prying ears.) On the east coast, listeners will hear David Lee Roth, on the West Coast, Adam Carolla–known to cable television viewers for hosting the “Man Show.”

So where do you go to promote your show if you are replacing Howard Stern? To National Public Radio, of course. This morning Carolla did just that, shaking up the normally ever proper and serious “Morning Edition” show.

Toward the end of the interview, host Rene Montagne asked Adam whether he’d been given a talk on FCC indecency rules. He had of course–Infinitiy’s lawyer’s aren’t crazy. But Carolla then quickly pointed out this stuff wasn’t new to him. Everyone asks him, he said, whether he’s just going to go out and start throwing the “f-bomb”. His answer: “I’ve been on TV for ten years, what the [bleep] do you think I’m gonna do?”

It was probably the first time in decades the Morning Edition crew had to use their bleep button. Stern may be gone, but things may still be interesting for CBS and the FCC. Stay tuned.

SHARE: 2 comments

From 1996 to 2006–A Retrospective

by on January 4, 2006

I started work at the Cato Institute at the beginning of 1997, and here it is 2006. As I write, I know that very few of the reforms that I and other free-marketers advocate have ever been enacted. Some bad legislation has been prevented (opt-in!); some unconstitutional legislation has been voided; the FCC has continued to move towards something more like real property rights in spectrum at an absurdly incremental pace. But universal service has not been abolished or even replaced with targeted subsidies or auctions. Indecency rules continue to be used to harass broadcasters. A few predicted that the Net would make censorship impossible, or that cyberspace would become its own sovereign nation. Yet China censors the Net with mixed success; Yahoo and other companies must cooperate or get out.

In spite of this, I am full of hope for the future…

Continue reading →

SHARE:

Is Parental Responsibility Dead?

by on December 15, 2005 · 4 comments

Richard Huff, TV columnist for the New York Daily News, has a very entertaining column today entitled “Your Kids, Your Cable, Your Problem.” It’s basically an open letter to the parents of America who are calling for cable regulation or censorship.

“Stop looking for outside help from Congress or watchdog groups to clean up, clear up and make safe the programming your kids watch,” he argues. “If parents want to have a handle on what their kids watch, well, then, they’ve got to take control of the situation. Sorry, that’s the truth. Stop looking for someone else to blame.”

Huff makes a powerful case for parental responsibility over government nannyism and points out that if we give up and let the government play the role of surrogate parent, we will be making a serious mistake:

“The idea of limiting channel lineups is as crazy as the arguments being made to clean up TV in general. It’s born of the same mentality that requires the producers of a commercial with a car climbing the side of a building to warn viewers not to try it themselves.

Here’s my advice: Get all the programming you can for the price you can afford. Give yourself options. And if you’re seriously concerned about blocking content, take control and use the tools at hand.

The last thing you want is for someone else to make those decisions for you.”

Amen brother!

SHARE: 4 comments

A “Voluntary” Charade: The “Family-Friendly Tier” Case Study

by on December 13, 2005

After 15 years of covering communications and media policy in Washington, I have found that the most important book to keep handy is not any book of law or economics, but rather a good dictionary. That’s because I constantly need to reassure myself that I haven’t forgotten the true meaning of some words in the English language after hearing how they are used (and abused) by Washington policymakers.

Take the word “voluntary,” for example. It’s a fairly simply word that most of us learned very early in life. I didn’t really feel that I needed to look it up in my dictionary until I started working in Washington. Here in Washington, you see, “voluntary” appears to mean something very different that what we learned long ago in school. Consider this week’s announcement that the cable industry will “voluntarily” be adopting “family-friendly” tiers of programming.

Continue reading →

SHARE:

A La Carte as Censorship

by on December 9, 2005 · 4 comments

Need more proof that the a la carte debate has very little to do with economics and everything to do with content regulation? Well, here’s Parents Television Council’s Brent Bozell in the Los Angeles Times yesterday commenting on his desired outcome of an a la carte regulatory regime:

“Maybe you won’t have 100 channels, maybe you’ll only have 20. But good programming is going to survive, and you will get rid of some waste.”

Well isn’t that nice. Mr. Bozell is fine with consumer choices shrinking so long as what’s left on the air is the “good programming” that he desires. It just goes to show that, as I argued in an essay earlier this week, the fight over a la carte is really a moral battle about what we can see on cable and satellite television.

But is Mr. Bozell correct that a la carte “will get rid of some waste” on cable and satellite TV? As I suggest in my essay, it’s highly unlikely because one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. The networks that Mr. Bozell considers “waste” (Comedy Central, F/X, MTV, Spike, etc.) happen to be some of the most popular channels on cable and satellite today. And it’s likely to stay that way, even under an a la carte regulatory regime.

So, despite the crusade to “clean up” cable, people will still flock to those networks in fairly large numbers. And the channels that Bozell & Co. want everyone to get (religious and family-channels) could be threatened by a la carte if too few people choose to continue subscribing.

SHARE: 4 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →