Should Government Censor Speech on Cable and
Satellite TV?
A troubling shift may be developing in the way
lawmakers regulate mass media in the U.S.
During recent congressional hearings addressing
broadcast television and radio violations of Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) indecency standards, several
lawmakers hinted that federal censorship efforts should extend
beyond licensed TV and radio operators to unlicensed media
sources, such as cable, satellite, and Internet providers.
Leaving aside the Janet Jackson incident during
this year’s Super Bowl halftime show, it seems reasonable to
question the wisdom of Congress getting involved in regulating
“pay TV” programs. Subscription-based media providers have not
faced such regulatory scrutiny in the past because they are not
licensed by the FCC and, therefore, receive strict First
Amendment protection.
But some lawmakers appear to feel that should
change. For example, during recent hearings, Rep. Cliff Stearns
(R-Florida) suggested Congress create a “code of conduct” for
television that encompasses cable and satellite TV. Rep. Heather
Wilson (R-New Mexico) and Republican FCC Commissioner Kevin
Martin both suggested cable and satellite companies should offer
a “family-friendly” tier of programming.
In one sense, the argument for censorship parity
is powerful. After all, viewers don’t really make a distinction
between over-the-air and pay TV sources anymore. More than 85
percent of households currently subscribe to either cable or
satellite television services, and traditional broadcast
networks are now just a few of the options we can flip through
in our 500-channel universe. So why should older broadcast
television networks be the only ones taking the regulatory heat?
The downside of regulatory parity is obvious:
Congress and the FCC would start censoring pay TV providers and
programs. Consider what that might mean for cable networks like
HBO or Showtime, which produce popular, but admittedly
controversial, programs, such as “The Sopranos” and “Queer as
Folk.” Should Congress or the FCC really have the right to
regulate the content of such programs, or what time they are
shown?
Moreover, what happened to common sense and
personal responsibility in this country? Cable and satellite
boxes, personal computers, and Internet connections didn’t just
magically appear in our homes; we put them there! Those of us
who are parents understand that raising a child in today’s media
marketplace is a daunting task at times. But that should not
serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of
surrogate parent for everyone.
Congress doesn’t have the right to censor pay TV,
thanks to the First Amendment and America’s strong tradition of
freedom of speech and expression. Lawmakers have never been able
to censor supposedly “indecent” material in newspapers,
magazines, books, cable, satellite, or the Internet the same way
they have broadcast television. Courts will have none of it.
But the danger of back-door censorship still
lurks with the growing convergence of media providers and
technologies. In the future, traditional broadcasters might
deliver their shows directly to consumers via cable, satellite,
or even Internet video streaming. If they do so, even more
regulatory pressure will be brought to bear on those private
operators.
Make no mistake, this fight is no longer about a
brief flash of flesh during the Super Bowl or a few dirty words
on radio; it’s become a blatant political effort to gain more
control over cable and satellite television as they supplant
over-the-air broadcasting in America. And if Congress and the
FCC win the right to censor speech on pay TV, they will gain
additional powers, such as the ability to mandate a certain
amount of “educational” programming, free airtime for
politicians, more “public access” programming, and so on.
So stay tuned, this fight is just getting
started. One way or another, Ms. Jackson’s “wardrobe
malfunction” might end up ushering in a veritable revolution in
federal censorship policy.
