EOF more on Censorship via loss of closed caption funding?

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

From: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner () w3 org>

for IP if you like.

I hate to through cold water on anyone who feels protective of freedom of 
speech, but there's a strong constitutional argument that the government ca 
fund the speech it likes and not fund the speech of which it disapprove. 
Recent Supreme Court cases including

-Rust v. Sullivan (that the government can prevent doctor's in 
government-funded clinics from dispensing information about abortion 
options notwithstanding assertions that this tramples doctor's First 
Amendment rights)
-NEA v. Finley (that the NEA can employ content-based criteria in awarding 
grants for the arts)

support the governments authority in this regard and reject the proposition 
that private speakers have a right to be funded (or captioned). The 
question of whether the decisions are entirely arbitrary could be a factor, 
but if there's a 'rational basis' for the decision, then it seems likely 
that it would stand up in court.

Library filtering cases are in this category, too, sad to say.

This would be a whole different matter if the DoED tried to issue a 
regulation prohibiting closed-captioning of programs about witchcraft. That 
would be clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The great latitude to use or abuse its spending power is one reason why 
some of us have been opposed to government ownership of communications 
infrastructure wherever possible. What the government owns or funds, it can 
control.

Danny 

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/