Posts tagged as:

New PFF Study: “Who Needs Parental Controls?”

by on February 27, 2009 · 6 comments

I’ve got a new PFF paper out today entitled, “Who Needs Parental Controls? Assessing the Relevant Market for Parental Control Technologies.” In this piece, I address the argument made by some media and Internet critics who say that government intervention (perhaps even censorship) may be necessary because parental control technologies are not widely utilized by most Americans. But, as I note in the paper, the question that these critics always fail to ask is: How many homes really need parental control technologies? The answer: Far fewer than you think. Indeed, the relevant universe of potential parental control users is actually quite limited.

I find that the percentage of homes that might need parental control technologies is certainly no greater than the 32% of U.S. households with children in them. Moreover, the relevant universe of potential parental control users is likely much less than that because households with very young children or older teens often have little need for parental control technologies. Finally, some households do not utilize parental control technologies because they rely on alternative methods of controlling media content and access in the home, such as household media rules. Consequently, policymakers should not premise regulatory proposals upon the limited overall “take-up” rate for parental control tools since only a small percentage of homes might actually need or want them.

If you don’t care to read the whole nerdy thing, I’ve created this short video summarizing the major findings of the paper.

http://www.youtube.com/v/a7Fnf3Ztt-U&hl=en&fs=1

And the document is embedded below the fold in a Scribd reader. Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

When Conservatives Favored the Fairness Doctrine

by on February 25, 2009 · 23 comments

I was over at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the other day chatting with someone about various regulatory issues and Rush Limbaugh’s WSJ editorial came up.  The person I was speaking with made a comment about how conservatives have really been energized and unified in opposition to the re-imposition to the Doctrine.  I reminded them, however, that it wasn’t always the case that conservatives stood together in the fight over the Fairness Doctrine.  In fact, when I first came to town almost 20 years ago, there were still plenty of conservatives who actually favored it.  I was reminded of that fact when reading a new piece in Engage about “Broadcast ‘Fairness’ in the Twenty-First Century” by my friend Robert Corn-Revere.  Bob is one America’s great First Amendment defenders and his new essay offers an excellent history of efforts to micro-manage speech on the broadcast airwaves over the years.  In it, he reminds us that:

Given the recent vocal opposition to the Fairness Doctrine in the interest of preserving conservative talk radio, it is easy to forget that many prominent conservatives championed the doctrine before its demise. Phyllis Schlafly was a vocal proponent of the Fairness Doctrine because of what she described as “the outrageous and blatant anti-Reagan bias of the TV network newscasts,” and she testified at the FCC in the 1980s in support of the policy “to serve as a small restraint on the monopoly power wielded by Big TV Media.” Senator Jesse Helms was another long-time advocate of the Fairness Doctrine, and conservative groups Accuracy in Media and the American Legal Foundation actively pursued fairness complaints at the FCC against network newscasts.

Likewise, in our book, A Manifesto for Media Freedom, Brian Anderson and I note that some other prominent right-leaning politicians, such as Sen. Trent Lott, favored the Fairness Doctrine.  Moreover, even though most of those conservative individuals and groups have now turned against the Fairness Doctrine, some Republicans still defend (or even seek to expand) the same underlying regulatory concepts that served as the foundation of the Fairness Doctrine.  As Corn-Revere notes: Continue reading →

SHARE: 23 comments

New Article on “FCC v Fox and Future of First Amendment”

by on February 20, 2009 · 20 comments

My new article on “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment” has just been published in the February 2009 edition of Engage, the journal of the Federalist Society. Here’s how it begins:

On November 4th, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the potentially historic free speech case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. This case, which originated in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, deals with the FCC’s new policy for “fleeting expletives” on broadcast television. The FCC lost and appealed to the Supreme Court. By contrast, the so-called “Janet Jackson case” — CBS v. FCC — was heard in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The FCC also lost that case and has also petitioned the Supreme Court to review the lower court’s ruling. These two cases reflect an old and odd tension in American media policy and First Amendment jurisprudence. Words and images presented over one medium-in this case broadcast television-are regulated differently than when transmitted through any other media platform (such as newspapers, cable TV, DVDs, or the Internet). Various rationales have been put forward in support of this asymmetrical regulatory standard. Those rationales have always been weak, however. Worse yet, they have opened the door to an array of other regulatory shenanigans, such as the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and many other media marketplace restrictions. Whatever sense this arrangement made in the past, technological and marketplace developments are now calling into question the wisdom and efficacy of the traditional broadcast industry regulatory paradigm. This article will explore both the old and new rationales for differential First Amendment treatment of broadcast television and radio operators and conclude that those rationales: (1) have never been justified, and (2) cannot, and should not, survive in our new era of media abundance and technological convergence.

I go on in the piece to make the case against the those rationales and the call for the Supreme Court to use the Fox and CBS cases to end this historical First Amendment anomaly of differential treatment of broadcast platforms relative to all other media providers.

This article can be downloaded as a PDF here, or viewed down below the fold in the Scribd reader.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 20 comments

Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?

by on February 13, 2009 · 25 comments

Statue at FTC Headquarters: “Man Controlling Trade” (We’re rooting for the horse!)

Adam Thierer and I have just released a new PFF paper entitled “Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?” (PDF) about the FTC’s new “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising.”  Adam lampooned some of the attitudes at play in this debate in a great rant yesterday.

But we give the FTC credit for resisting calls to abandon self-regulation, and for its thoughtful consideration of the danger in stifling advertising-the economic engine that has supported a flowering of creative expression and innovation online content and services.  That said, we continue to have our doubts about the FTC’s approach, however-well intentioned:

  1. Where is this approach heading?  Will a good faith effort to suggest best practices eventually morph into outright government regulation of the online advertising marketplace?
  2. What, concretely, is the harm we’re trying to address?  We have asked this question several times before and have yet to see a compelling answer.
  3. What will creeping “co-regulation” mean for the future of “free” Internet services?  Is the mother’s milk of the Internet-advertising-about to be choked off by onerous privacy mandates?

We stand at an important crossroads in the debate over the online marketplace and the future of a “free and open” Internet. Many of those who celebrate that goal focus on concepts like “net neutrality” at the distribution layer, but what really keeps the Internet so “free and open” is the economic engine of online advertising at the applications and content layers. If misguided government regulation chokes off the Internet’s growth or evolution, we would be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

The dangers of regulation to the health of the Internet are real, but the ease with which government could disrupt the economic motor of the Internet (advertising) is not widely understood-and therein lies the true danger in this debate.  The advocates of regulation pay lip service to the importance of advertising in funding online content and services but don’t seem to understand that this quid pro quo is a fragile one: Tipping the balance, even slightly, could have major consequences for continued online creativity and innovation.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 25 comments

Shame on Mozilla

by on February 10, 2009 · 11 comments

Over at Ars, Ryan Paul has an appropriately sharp-tongued response to the Mozilla Foundation’s troubling move to become a cheerleader for the European Commission’s ongoing antitrust efforts against Microsoft. Apparently Mozilla will assist the EC’s investigation “by offering expertise about the browser market.”

Paul focuses on what’s wrong with this in both a micro and macro sense. He rightly points out that the potential remedies here do not bode well for the future of this sector, since regulatory tinkering with high-tech product standards is bound to end badly and create a terrible precedent for future interventions. “It’s hard to find a rational argument in favor of mandatory standards enforcement,”  Paul says. “It would be punitive and unhelpful to the advancement of the web.” Moreover, Paul notes that things have never looked better on the browser front:

Claims that Microsoft’s monopoly status has eliminated competition in the browser market sound hollow in the face of the profoundly vibrant browser market that exists today. The record-setting launch of Firefox 3 added up to over 8 million downloads in the first 24 hours alone. Firefox’s global market share continues to climb every month and the browser has grabbed almost 30 percent of the European market.

And let’s not forget about those two little companies called Google and Apple who have competing products in the field! They’re making serious inroads in the browser wars. Moreover, Microsoft is struggling to hold on to whatever “dominance” they have left in their core market: OS. As Paul concludes:

To the observant tech enthusiast, all signs seem to indicate that Microsoft’s monopoly is on its way out. The Redmond giant is in no danger of annihilation, but it’s definitely not positioned to dictate terms to the rest of the industry anymore.

But what is perhaps most shocking about Mozilla’s call for intervention is the way that Mozilla Foundation chairperson Mitchell Baker minimizes the importance of not just Firefox, but the entire open source movement, when justifying EC intervention in this marketplace.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 11 comments

Book Review: Post’s Jefferson’s Moose & the State of Cyberspace

by on January 22, 2009 · 29 comments

Post Jeffersons MooseI used to have a (semi-crazy) uncle who typically began conversations with lame jokes or bad riddles. This sounds like one he might have used had he lived long enough: What do Thomas Jefferson, a moose, and cyberspace have in common?

The answer to that question can be found in a new book, In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace, by David G. Post, a Professor of Law at Temple University. Post, who teaches IP and cyberspace law at Temple, is widely regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of the “Internet exceptionalist” school of thinking about cyberlaw.  Basically, Post sees this place we call “cyberspace” as something truly new, unique, and potentially worthy of some special consideration, or even somewhat different ground rules than we apply in meatspace. More on that in a bit.

[ Full disclosure: Post’s work was quite influential on my own thinking during the late 1990s, so much so that when I joined the Cato Institute in 2000, one of the first things I did was invite David to become an adjunct scholar with Cato. He graciously accepted and remains a Cato adjunct scholar today. Incidentally, Cato is hosting a book forum for him on February 4th that I encourage you to attend or watch online. Anyway, it’s always difficult to be perfectly objective when you know and admire someone, but I will try to do so here.]

Post’s book is essentially an extended love letter — to both cyberspace and Jefferson. Problem is, as Post even admits at the end, it’s tough to know which subject this book is suppose to teach us more about. The book loses focus at times — especially in the first 100 pages — as Post meanders between historical tidbits of Jefferson’s life and thinking and what it all means for cyberspace. But the early focus is on TJ.  Thus, those who pick up the book expecting to be immediately immersed in cyber-policy discussions may be a bit disappointed at first.  As a fellow Jefferson fanatic, however, I found all this history terrifically entertaining, whether it was the story of Jefferson’s Plow and his other agricultural inventions and insights, TJ’s unique interest in science (including cryptography), or that big moose of his.

OK, so what’s the deal with the moose? When TJ was serving as a minister to France in in the late 1780s, at considerable expense to himself, he had the complete skeleton, skin and horns of a massive American moose shipped to the lobby of his Paris hotel. Basically, Jefferson wanted to make a bold statement to his French hosts about this New World he came from and wake them up to the fact that some very exciting things were happening over there that they should be paying attention to. That’s one hell of way to make a statement!

Continue reading →

SHARE: 29 comments

Martin Blames Others for His Own Mismanagement of FCC

by on January 22, 2009 · 10 comments

When the history books are finally written, I think it’s clear that outgoing FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will likely go down as one of — if not the — most aggressively pro-regulatory Republican chairman in the agency’s history.  Despite his occasional claims of believing in free markets and his support for a couple of legitimately deregulatory decisions, his tenure at the FCC has generally been characterized by a growth of government power, spending, and bureaucracy. But don’t take my word for it; read the report he issued last week called “Moving Forward,” which to some of us looks more like moving backwards (or at least stuck in the same ol’ mud).

Martin, however, touts his regulatory actions and expansion of FCC power as uniformly pro-consumer. Martin is just another in the long line of statists who claims that consumer welfare can only be enhanced by adding layers of government mandates and regulatory red tape.  History teaches us a different lesson: That regulation and bureaucracy typically stifle innovation and competition and hurt consumer welfare in the process. Moreover, there are some constitutional considerations and limitations that should trump — or at least limit — the powers of unelected bureaucrats to run roughshod over our rights. But hey, who cares about those meddlesome little things like the First, Fifth, Tenth, or Fourteenth Amendments?!  Certainly not Kevin Martin.

What’s equally troubling about Martin’s tenure at the agency is the track record of mismanagement and the bad blood that seemingly surrounds everything and everyone he comes in contact with. The picture painted in the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s 110-page report, “Deception and  Distrust: The FCC Under Chairman Kevin J.Martin,” is not a pretty one — although the report failed to mention that waste, mismanagement, and other regulatory shenanigans have been going on at this agency under the days of Democratic rule, too.

Martin’s response to the House report was all too predictable: The evil corporate interests are out to get me!  “[M]ost of the criticisms contained in the Majority Staff Report,” Martin says in a letter released a few days ago, “reflect the vehement opposition of the cable and wireless industries to my policies to serve and protect consumers.”

Whatever.

I’m just glad this nightmare is over. Hopefully Martin’s tenure will serve as a cautionary tale for a future Republican administration: If you actually believe in free minds and free markets, try vetting the guy you install at the FCC to make sure he’s a true believer as well.

SHARE: 10 comments

Closing the Book on COPA?

by on January 21, 2009 · 23 comments

gavelIt appears that the long legal saga of the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) has finally come to a close. This morning, according to AP, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government’s latest request to revive the law, which was stuck down as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment by lower courts and never went into effect.

COPA was an effort by Congress to modify the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Reno v. ACLU finding that the CDA was unconstitutionally over-broad. COPA sought to narrow the scope of regulation and protect minors from sexual material on the Internet by making it a crime for someone to “knowingly” place materials online that were “harmful to minors.” The law provided an affirmative defense from prosecution, however, to those parties who made a “good faith” effort to “restrict[ ] access by minors to material that is harmful to minors” using credit cards or age verification schemes. Although narrower than the CDA, COPA was immediately challenged and also blocked by lower courts because it was still too sweeping in effect. Moreover, the courts found there were other “less restrictive means” that parents could use to deal with objectionable content — such as Internet filters.

Following the initial challenge, COPA then became the subject of an epic, decade-long legal battle that finally concluded today when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to revisit the law. COPA had already been reviewed by the Supreme Court twice before — in 2002 and 2004.  Thus, a third visit to the Supreme Court by COPA would have been something of a historical development in the world of First Amendment jurisprudence. But with the Supreme Court’s rejection of the government’s appeal today, lower court rulings stand and COPA will remain unconstitutional and unenforceable.

The key recent legal battle occurred in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court ruling striking down COPA. The Third Circuit’s full decision is here. And I penned a 3-part series on the lower court ruling by Judge Lowell Reed Jr., senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, here, here, and here. Also make sure to check out this summary of COPA’s legal journey that Alex Harris penned last November.

While COPA is now dead and buried, it would be foolish to think this is the end of efforts to legislate on this front. Although it remains unclear what the legislative response will look like during a time of Democratic rule, I am certain that legislation will be floated in short order (i.e., “Son of COPA”) to try to get around the constitutional issues and regulate objectionable online content. If legislators were smart, they’d avoid legally risky solutions like more centralized filtering mandates or age verification requirements. They’d be on safer ground to consider going the subsidy route and finding a way to get parental control tools in the hands of more families and institutions. I’m not saying that I favor such subsidies, merely that such an approach would almostly certainly pass legal muster and probably wouldn’t even be challenged in court. They might also consider more public education / PSA-driven approached to online safety. Those approaches may end up finding more support in a Democratic Congress and administration anyway.

[More coverage at NYT, Reuters, CNet and Ars.]

SHARE: 23 comments

Ars on “Better FCC Indecency Complaints”

by on January 12, 2009 · 15 comments

Over at Ars, Matt Lasar has a piece about the need for better FCC indecency complaint statistics. He has been monitoring the wild fluctuations in indecency complaint tallies in recent years and wonders:

whether the agency’s indecency/obscenity statistics reflect spontaneous viewer response to the level of erotic/linguistic friskiness on TV or solely on the power of coordinated campaigns launched by groups like the Parents Television Council.

Indeed, PTC is the primary culprit. As I noted in my big 2005 PFF report “Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process”, “The PTC’s increasingly effective use of computer-generated campaigns against specific TV programs is a leading factor in explaining the large jump in indecency complaints in recent years.” The PTC has even taken credit for it themselves, as I noted in the paper.

How did the FCC’s indecency process get so screwy, and how did the PTC come to influence it so greatly? As I noted in that paper (as well as a Supreme Court filing with my friends at CDT), in recent years the FCC has quietly and without major notice made two methodological changes to its tallying of broadcast indecency complaints, both changes urged upon the FCC by a single advocacy group — the PTC — targeting broadcast indecency: Continue reading →

SHARE: 15 comments

Lessig on Building a Better Bureaucrat

by on December 24, 2008 · 24 comments

Before commenting on Lawrence Lessig’s latest call to abolish the Federal Communications Commission (he issued a similar call for the FCC’s abolition earlier this year, which I commented on here), let’s recall what Tim Lee posted yesterday about “Real Regulators“:

Too many advocates of regulation seem to have never considered the possibility that the FCC bureaucrats in charge of making these decisions at any point in time might be lazy, incompetent, technically confused, or biased in favor of industry incumbents. That’s often what “real regulators” are like, and it’s important that when policy makers are crafting regulatory scheme, they assume that some of the people administering the law will have these kinds of flaws, rather than imagining that the rules they write will be applied by infallible philosopher-kings.

Ironically, Prof. Lessig — who typically defends many forms of high-tech regulation like Net neutrality and online content labeling — is essentially agreeing with Tim’s critique of bureaucracy. But Lessig seems to ignore the underlying logic of Tim’s critique and instead imagines that we need only reinvent bureaucracy in order to save it. But I’m getting ahead of myself. First, let’s hear what Lessig proposes.

In a Newsweek column this week entitled “Reboot the FCC,” Lessig argues that the FCC is beyond saving because, instead of protecting innovation, the agency has succumb to an “almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead.” Consequently, he continues:

The solution here is not tinkering. You can’t fix DNA. You have to bury it. President Obama should get Congress to shut down the FCC and similar vestigial regulators, which put stability and special interests above the public good. In their place, Congress should create something we could call the Innovation Environment Protection Agency (iEPA), charged with a simple founding mission: “minimal intervention to maximize innovation.” The iEPA’s core purpose would be to protect innovation from its two historical enemies–excessive government favors, and excessive private monopoly power.

As was the case with his earlier call to “blow up the FCC,” I am tickled to hear Lessig call for shutting down an agency that many of us have been fighting against for the last few decades. (Here’s a 1995 blueprint for abolishing the FCC that I contributed to, and here’s PFF’s recent “DACA” project to comprehensively reform and downsize the agency.)

But is Lessig really calling for the same sort of sweeping regulatory reform and downsizing that others have been calling for? And has he identified the real source of the problem that he hopes to correct?  I don’t think so. There are 3 basic problems with the argument Lessig is putting forward in his essay. I will address each in turn.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 24 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →