Televangelist Pat Robertson recently made news with some fairly stupid comments about “taking out” Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.
Many critics rightly condemned Mr. Robertson’s suggestion that the United States should consider assassinating leaders of state with which we do not agree. In this case, it’s particularly outrageous since (a) Chavez has said nothing to threaten America directly, and (b) even if he had, it would not qualify as grounds for assassination. After all, it’s just Venezuela we’re talking about here. I don’t think we need to worry about them sending an armada up to invade us anytime soon.
But as stupid as it was for Rev. Robertson to suggest assassination as a solution to whatever “problem” it is Mr. Chavez poses, I certainly think he has the right to raise the issue and debate it with others. But apparently another Reverend doesn’t agree. Rev. Jesse Jackson says that the Federal Communications Commission should fine Rev. Robertson for his comments. “The FCC must have some standard on the advocacy of violence,” Jackson said.
Continue reading →
There’s been a lull in the indecency wars so far in Chairman Kevin Martin’s short tenure at the FCC–no fines have been assessed this year, compared to $7.9 million in fines in 2004. That may soon change. Mediaweek reports that the FCC has hired Penny Nance, an anti-pornography advocate and founder of the Kids First Coalition, to serve an an advisor on the issue. Nance will work from the FCC’s Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (an office that historically been focused on economics, and not involved in indecency issues.)
It’s too early to say what the appointment means. There’s some speculation that the Commission is preparing to act on a new set of indecency complaints.
When called by MediaWeek, Nance declined an interview, saying “I can’t talk now.” That leaves open the obvious question: “Who can talk now?” Stay tuned.
We all know how governments enjoy levying “sin taxes” on alcohol and tobacco, so it shouldn’t be at all surprisingly that someone is now proposing to impose one on online porn viewing. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, (D-Ark.) is apparently going to drop a bill next week that would impose a federal excise tax on transactions with for-profit adult Web sites.
I am not about to pen a defense for those people who spend endless hours looking at dirty pictures online, but I really do believe this bill has got to be the silliest idea to come out of Congress in a long time. Specifically, it once again proves that most members of Congress have absolutely no appreciation for what sort of enforcement difficulties they are up against in terms of regulating the Net and online content.
After all, just because a website is for-profit, it doesn’t mean it will be easy to impose such a tax scheme. The tax evasion possibilities here are endless, especially considering how much activity originates overseas. How will the tax be reported? What kind of enforcement regime will be necessary to even collect a small percentage of these taxes? In a world of anonymous electronic transactions, I just can’t see how enforcement would work. I guess Congress could force credit card companies to somehow become their deputized policemen and make them figure out when people are viewing online porn. Of course, there are some serious privacy issues at stake there and there’s still little chance that even the financial intermediaries will be able to track everybody down. Moreover, why should financial intermediaries be forced to become the henchmen of the State in terms of enforcing morality?
Of course, I’m just focusing on the enforcement problems with this measure. I haven’t said a word about the many ways in which this is likely unconstitutional as well. The courts have struck down just about every other effort to regulate online content, so I have a difficult time believing that they’ll allow this one to stand for very long. Taxes on speech have been found to be every bit as unconstitutional as direct speech controls. So this bill is doomed in my opinion.
(By the way, time for a shameless plug… This issue was the subject of my fourth book, Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction. Make sure to check our Robert Corn-Revere’s chapter in this book if you are interested in learning more about this subject: “Caught in the Seamless Web: Does the Internet’s Global Reach Justify Less Freedom of Speech?” Here’s another version of it online.)
The lead sentence of an editorial in this week’s Economist includes five words not normally found in a news magazine (they are *****, *******, ***, *******, and *****) A desperate ploy for circulation? No, the magazine is merely quoting from an FCC decision on what can and can not be said over U.S. airwaves. The article, which argues for scrapping–rather than extending–FCC indecency rules, is worthwhile reading (as is a related analysis). The conclusion:
There is one strong argument against scrapping indecency regulation for television. Kids not lucky enough to have responsible parents might end up being exposed to more adult sex and profanity. But people should weigh the risk of that outcome against the harm of allowing each incoming administration to decide what everyone can and cannot watch. The current government has shown that it can easily broaden the country’s definition of what is indecent. Under pressure from Congress, the FCC has cracked down and has overruled its own precedents. What might future governments do? Technology has offered the chance to scale back censorship and America, long a champion of free speech, should seize it.
Well said.
One of the most common arguments in favor of government censorship of media–whether it’s TV, radio, movies, or video games–is that parents are simply powerless to stop the onslaught of objectionable content that their children might be able to access. As a parent, there are times when I can sympathize with those who feel this way, but I always point out that this is never a good excuse to call in Uncle Sam to dumb down all media to that which is only fit for a child. Let us as parents make choices for our own families.
Luckily, many new tools and technologies are available to help parents make decisions about what their children see, hear and play. But until today, I had not found a single resource that collected all these self-help tools in one spot. Well, I finally found it! It’s called “Pause-Parent-Play” (PauseParentPlay.org) and it formally launches today with a kick-off event on Capitol Hill in Washington.
Continue reading →
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) proposed new legislation on Thursday that would make it a federal offense for retailers to sell a minor a video game that includes violent or sexual themes. Her bill would impose a $5000 fine on any retailer that sold a youngster a game that was classified as mature or violent under the video game industry’s voluntary ratings system.
The Clinton bill might best be thought of as a “hanging the industry with its own rope” regulatory scheme. That is, her bill would hijack the industry’s voluntary ratings system and then use it against them (and retailers) should someone choose to sell a game with mature or violent themes to someone under the age of 18.
Continue reading →
Anytime you find yourself thinking that regulation in America can’t get any worse, it’s always helpful to take a look at Europe for confirmation that yes, indeed, it can. The Times of London online edition posted a startling story today on a new issue paper on media regulation expected to be released soon in Brussels. The paper is part of an EU effort to update its existing media directive, adopted in 1989. Among its conclusions: “non-linear audio-visual content” (Euro-speak for Internet content) needs to be regulated. According to Times Online, the EU is considering regulating areas such as “taste and decency, accuracy and impartiality for Internet broadcasters.”
Chilling stuff, if true. Of course, it’s hard to predict what, if anything will sprout out of Brussels’ bureaucratic maze. Still, it kind of makes you glad that over here we have that pesky First Amendment to protect us (well, usually) from such regulatory musings.
The Miami Herald ran a nice piece yesterday highlighting the impact of the Parents Television Council in the debate over federal speech controls. Glenn Garvin was kind enough to call me for some background since he knows I have been at odds with the PTC in the past, and they have responded directly.
Anyway, in the Miami Herald article, I note that:
“This group is having a real impact in Washington,” and that “They are coming to have the equivalent of a heckler’s veto over a lot of decisions by the FCC and Congress regarding broadcast content.” I also address the old “public’s airwaves” argument and note that, “Even if the public owns the airwaves, it doesn’t diminish the First Amendment rights of the people in the broadcast industry.” After all, the public technically owns city streets, I point out, but that doesn’t mean the government can censor the newspapers sold in sidewalk coinboxes.’
Anyway, if you care to read the entire article, you can find it here.
I had an editorial that ran in today’s Washington Post entitled “New Worlds to Censor.” In this editorial, I discuss the threat of expanded media censorship and point out why traditional regulatory rationales are no longer applicable in our new media environment. This editorial builds on the First Amendment studies that we have been publishing at PFF in recent months, which can be found here, here, and here.
There’s an important piece on B1 of today’s Wall Street Journal about the growing market for mobile media content. In particular, the article focuses on the potential for sexually oriented content to be a major driver in this market over the next few years. Already, several cell phone carriers or content providers are developing such services.
That should hardly be surprising. One of the uncomfortable realities of the media marketplace is that sexually oriented content has been wildly popular–indeed, it has been the ultimate “killer app.” You can go back to the early history of newspapers, magazines, photography, cable, satellite, and the Internet and see how sexual content has been a major driver of growth for each medium. So, it will be the same for cell phones. That’s why today’s WSJ article uses the creative title: “Sex Cells.”
As I’ve mentioned in several previous posts (here, here and here), this raises the possibility for cell phone content regulation by federal officials. There have been some rumblings in Washington already about the need for the wireless industry to take steps to shield children from potentially objectionable material even before it hits the market. But there’s no denying that this content will soon be available. The question is, once that happens, will broadcast TV and radio “indecency” controls be imposed on wireless content in coming years?
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.