This is the sixth and final installment in a series of essays about the legacy of the Supreme Court’s FCC v. Pacifica Foundation decision, which celebrates its 30th anniversary today. Part 1, presented a general overview of the issue. Part 2 sketched a short history of FCC indecency regulation. Part 3 discussed the misguided logic of the Court’s reasoning in Pacifica as it stood in 1978. Part 4 showed how that logic is even more misguided in light of modern developments. And part 5 was a recent joint editorial on the issue I co-authored with John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology.
In this final installment, I thought I would just offer up a some further reading on the issue for those who might be interested in doing further research on the topic. Although it is certainly not an exhaustive list of all the relevant books and law review articles out there, below you find a bibliography of some of the very best material on the issue of the Pacifica case, the “pervasiveness doctrine,” and modern First Amendment jurisprudence. I’ve also embedded a Scribd version of a law review article I penned on these issues last year that ties together all my thinking on this front. It is called, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age.”
* Marjorie Heins, Not in Front of the Children: “Indecency,” Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001).
* Jonathan Emord, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 1991).
* Thomas G. Krattenmaker and Lucas A. Powe, “Converging First Amendment Principles for Converging Communications Media,” Yale Law Journal, May 1995.
* Thomas G. Krattenmaker and Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Regulating Broadcast Programming (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1994).
* Robert Corn-Revere, “New Technology and the First Amendment: Breaking the Cycle of Repression,” Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, Fall 1994.
* Robert Corn-Revere, “Can You Say That on TV?: An Examination of the FCC’s Enforcement with Respect to Broadcast Indecency,” Testimony Before the House Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, January 28, 2004.
* Robert Corn-Revere, “Can Broadcast Indecency Regulations Be Extended to Cable Television and Satellite Radio?” Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point 12.8, May 2005
* Jonathan D. Wallace, “The Specter of Pervasiveness: Pacifica, New Media, and Freedom of Speech,” Cato Institute Briefing Paper, no. 35, February 12, 1998.
* Ithiel de Sola Pool, Technologies of Freedom (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1983).
* Christopher S. Yoo, “The Rise and Demise of the Technology-Specific Approach to the First Amendment,” The Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 91, 2003.
* Lawrence H. Winer, “Children Are Not a Constitutional Blank Check,” in Robert Corn-Revere, ed., Rationales and Rationalizations (Washington, D.C.: The Media Institute, 1997).
* John Crigler and William J. Byrnes, “The Curious History of the New FCC Broadcast Indecency Policy,” Catholic University Law Review, Vol. 38, Winter 1989.
* Bruce Fein, “First Class First Amendment Rights for Broadcasters,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 10, no. 1, Winter 1997.
* Matthew L. Spitzer, “The Constitutionality of Licensing Broadcasters,” New York University Law Review, vol. 64, November 1989.
* Timothy B. Dyk, “Full First Amendment Freedom for Broadcasters; The Industry as Eliza on the Ice and Congress as the Friendly Overseer,” Yale Journal on Regulation, vol. 5.
* Margaret A. Blanchard, “The American Urge to Censor: Freedom of Expression Versus the Desire to Sanitize Society—From Anthony Comstock to 2 Live Crew,” William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 33, Spring 1992.
* Laurence H. Tribe, “Freedom of Speech and Press in the 21st Century: New Technology Meets Old Constitutionalism“, Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point 14.19, September 2007
* Adam Thierer, “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation” Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point 14.20, October 2007.
* Adam Thierer, “Who Killed TV’s ‘Family Hour’?“, City Journal, Fall 2007.
* Adam Thierer, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age,” Catholic University Law School CommLaw Conspectus, Vol. 15, pp. 431-482, July 10, 2007.
* Adam Thierer, “Images Kids See on the Screen,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, June 22, 2007.
* Adam Thierer, “Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process,” Progress & Freedom Foundation Progress on Point no. 12.22, November 2005,
* Adam Thierer, “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods,” Progress & Freedom Foundation, Version 3.0, 2008.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.