More on indecency rules extended to cable, satellite, Net [fs]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, 
satellite,senator insists [fs]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:33:45 -0800
From: Clinton D. Fein <clinton.fein () apollomedia com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Unfortunately you are right on target Declan.

What I propose is that when a politician, duly elected, such as Senator
Ted Stevens, decides to legislate "decency" with such an obvious and
predictable outcome, the costs involved in every single aspect,
including the cost of wasting the government's and Supreme Court's time
(and every attendant administrative cost from copying, printing, filing,
electricity, space, time, motions etc.) should be absorbed by the state
of Alaska.

Ted Stevens may not pay politically, but his constituents would pay in
cold hard cash. Perhaps it will deter politicians from abusing the
constitution and legal system for the purpose of political
grandstanding.

At the very least, it would help narrow the community standards
requirement -- necessary for obscenity determinations (and his only
chance of gaining legal traction with this). After all, if "obscenity"
has a legally sufficient although impossible-to-truly-measure (Miller)
standard, so too should indecency.

Let Alaskans have their cable regulated by Ted Stevens, and watch how
quickly he remains in office, or how little he pays politically.

Clinton
_____________________

Clinton Fein
555 Florida Street, #407
San Francisco, CA  94110
Email: clinton () xq com
www.clintonfein.com
_____________________



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, 
satellite, senator insists [fs]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:19:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Tracey Levin <tracey12_12 () yahoo com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Declan,

Of course the net will be regulated.  In the past
several years, you've documented the closing hand of
government control over the net.  What former CIA
leader called for the end of the Wild West on the net?

The Internet is just new ground for regulation.
Government regulates, controls, robs.  Now, satellite
radio falls to its control.  There must be money for
the feds somewhere in the equation.

Tracey



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, 
satellite,senator insists [fs]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:24:41 -0800
From: todd glassey <todd.glassey () worldnet att net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <20050301135234.B5534 () baltwash com>

Declan wait until WiMax happens and its range is extended into the hundreds
of miles - What you will see is WiMax Satellites and that will be that -
poof the entire information interchange in a single form factor. The
implications are mind boggling but all wind up with the FCC running
everything.

No need for the NTIA or any other of half a dozen governmental agencies
anymore so this might actually be good in that it would eliminate a bunch of
Governmental Spending that was un-needed

T.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Indecency rules must apply to cable, 
satellite,senator insists [fs]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:15:54 -0500
From: ben () allenwood org <ben () allenwood org>
To: declan () well com


He doesn't have the legal footing to stand on, because unlike the "public"
and "free" broadcast TV airwaves, cable and satellite are private and
restricted.  The courts have held that the decency standard applies to
broadcast because it is "pervasive" but cable and satellite are not.
However, FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin (who would really, really like to be
FCC Chairman) has noted that satellite TV does use frequencies leased from
the "public" (re: FCC) so because of this, the decency standard might
apply.  There is a de facto decency standard in use today on cable and
pay-TV, but it really is voluntary, and pay-TV operators do not face the
same risk of fines that terrestrial broadcasters do if they violate
"voluntary" decency standards.

But the government doesn't really have the power to restrict what cable and
satellite operators can do with their private networks.  It would be like
telling people they can't do certain things in their bedroom, or forcing
restaurant and bar owners to ban smoking in their establishments.  Or
banning personal drug use.  Oh, wait...




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, 
satellite,	senator insists [fs]
Date: Tue,  1 Mar 2005 12:20:46 -0700
From: dmercer () email arizona edu
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <20050301135234.B5534 () baltwash com>

Senator Stevens seems to have forgotten that Congress' power to prescribe
decency rules for broadcast TV and radio rests on the fact that those
media are
(or were, at the time of the rules adoption) of a scarce, public
commons nature
(spectra), and that they pass threw and are recievable by anyone, such as a
child with a portable TV.  He forgets that cable and satellite must be
explicitly subscribed to by an adult.  He'd ban with prior restraint speech
that takes an overt action to hear.  Toast in front of the Supremes, but how
long would it take to get there?

-David Mercer
Tucson, AZ




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, 
satellite, senator insists [fs]
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:32:26 -0500
From: J.D. Abolins <jabolins () meydaonline com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <20050301135234.B5534 () baltwash com>

Going on a fanciful pondering, if the FCC coverage applied to the
Internet, what some other prospects besides indecency ruling?

Licensing of Internet "broadcasters"? Some cases might already
FCC-regulated genre: Internet radio and various streaming multimedia
sites. But there are many others who publish or distribute via the
Internet. Would something analogous to the FCC Amateur Radio license be
instituted? That might not be so unlikely as it might first seem. The
notion of some type of license or permit to go online has been tossed
about over the past decade or so as a way to reduce crime and other
problems as well as to raise the overall level of user competancy.
(Would a licensing requirement really reduce crime is open for debate.
Just let's not use the motor vehicle licensing approach. <g>)

Perhaps an FCC for the Internet model might consider "distributors" as
well as "broadcasters" and try to make ISP responsible for material
going out from them.

The internation nature of the Internet would, however, challenge an
application of current FCC approaches. To my understanding, the FCC
covers broadcasting within the USA but has little, if any say, with
satellite broadcasts or shortwave transmissions originating outside of
the USA and not relayed in the USA.

Anyway, these were just fanciful musings.

J.D. Abolins
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)