more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and basic cable TV

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Paul C. Lembesis" <lembesis () emerson-associates com>
Date: April 24, 2007 1:08:59 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on FCC wants to regulate "violence" on  
broadcast and basic cable TV

for IP if appropriate:


The report may be a way to encourage cable to adopt a la carte  
programming, but that would not mean anything for broadcast  
television.  For broadcast, there is a real likelihood of either new  
legal regulation or new self-regulation of some kind to restrict  
violent programming.

For any law, it will be difficult, but not necessarily impossible, to  
find a definition of "violence" that is sufficiently precise to pass  
constitutional review.  However the courts are aware of the  
increasing violence in our culture and they may be favorably disposed  
to a new law.

I think that broadcasters might be willing to adopt a voluntary code  
but for the fact that cable would not go along.  Cable content has  
always been held to a lesser standard and cable companies will expect  
to continue to be held to a lesser standard by the courts.

So it may be hard to find a compromise, leading to a long-drawn battle.



Paul Lembesis






On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:01 AM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com>
> Date: April 24, 2007 7:23:19 AM EDT
> To: David Farber <dave () farber net>, ip () v2 listbox com
> Cc: lauren () vortex com
> Subject: Re: [IP] FCC wants to regulate "violence" on broadcast and  
> basic cable TV
>
> [For IP, if worthy]
> > From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
> > Here we go.  The FCC is about to release a report to Congress
> > suggesting that lawmakers enact legislation controlling "violent
> > content" -- not only on broadcast television but apparently on
> > "basic cable" channels as well.
> >
> > See: http://tinyurl.com/267ea5 (Washington Post article)
>
>         This is so far out from my understanding of both the limits of the
> FCC's power and that US law basically cannot regulate "violent  
> content"
> that I thought there must be another aspect to the story.
>
>         Aha! Page 2 of the article:
>
>  "According to FCC sources, the report's recommendations include the
>   creation of an "a la carte" system that would allow consumers to buy
>   only the cable channels they want -- a favorite plan of Martin's  
> that
>   is widely opposed by cable companies."
>
>         THAT's what this is about - the "a la carte" cable-pricing issue.
> The "violent content" posturing, and any proposals for new laws, are
> just an excuse, in order to get to a "compromise" proposal of having
> an "a la carte" cable-pricing system justified by saying consumers
> need to able to choose not to have the violent "basic cable" channels.
>
>         No need to ask "who benefits?" - it'll be in the report.
>
> --
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer   http://sethf.com
> Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
> Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com