roundtable: Response to Broadcasting and Cable Editorial (2-26-96)

roundtable: Response to Broadcasting & Cable Editorial (2/26/96)

Response to Broadcasting & Cable Editorial (2/26/96)

AllianceCM@aol.com
Fri, 15 Mar 1996 19:01:52 -0500 

Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 19:01:52 -0500
From: AllianceCM@aol.com
Message-Id: <960315190151_247049174@mail06>
To: roundtable@cni.org
Subject: Response to Broadcasting & Cable Editorial (2/26/96)


I thought you may be interested in the Alliance's response to an 
editorial that appeared in Broadcasting & Cable Magazine on February 
26, 1996... My thanks (as usual!) to Government Relatations Director 
Jeff Hops for drafting this letter. Of course, given its advertising 
base, Cable & Broadcasting is unlikely to respond to this letter -- 
much less to print it in an upcoming issue!

-- Barry
__________________________________________

February 28, 1996

Donald West, Editor
Broadcasting and Cable Magazine
1705 DeSales Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. West:

Your editorial "All Thumbs" (February 26, 1996)  illustrates exactly 
why cable operators should _not_ be permitted to censor public, 
educational and governmental ("PEG") and leased-access cable channels.   
The editorial incorrectly states that "[Under Section 10 of the 1992 
Act], an operator can, if he or she chooses, scramble or decide not to 
carry programs filled with rabid racist hate speech or close-ups of 
gyrating genitalia."   While operators' desire to prohibit hateful or 
lewd programming is understandable, this is not what the law actually 
says.  Unfortunately, _Broadcasting & Cable_ seems to believe that 
Section 10 defines "indecency" as "anything the cable operator finds 
patently offensive," including PEG programmers' political views.

Cable operators may  not relish providing "indecent" programming -- at 
least, not on their basic tier channels.  But "patently offensive" 
programming is not, by itself,  "indecent," and the condemnation of 
even a substantial majority of viewers or cable operators cannot make 
it so.  The statute and the regulation both state that indecent 
material _must_  "describe or depict sexual or excretory activities or 
organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary 
community standards for the cable medium."  Consequently, "rabid racist 
hate speech," while obnoxious and abhorrent, is  not "indecent,"  and 
cannot be censored, _even_ if Section 10 is upheld by the Court.

However,  your editorial implies that operators' censorship of 
political speech is not only permitted, but recommended.  Should the 
Court uphold the statute, I am certain that many operators, acting at 
least partially in reliance on your editorial position, will begin to 
pluck controversial political and public affairs programming from 
their PEG and leased-access channels, on the grounds that the views 
expressed are patently offensive _to them._  I must remind you that, 
before the 1984 Act made the editorial "hands-off" policy mandatory, 
many cable operators were granted franchises _because_ they agreed to 
cities' and towns' specifications that PEG and leased-access channels 
not be subject to such operator control.

In the Supreme Court,  the Alliance and its co-petitioners argued that 
the First Amendment would be threatened by the chilling effect Section 
10 would have on protected speech which may contain sexually-related 
depictions or descriptions.  But your editorial shows the real danger -- 
not just that some culturally valuable speech may  be censored because 
it contains references to sexuality,  but that cable operators will 
censor programming on politics, religion, alternative lifestyles and 
cultures, or  the performing and studio arts,  on the grounds that it 
is "patently offensive" to them.  Any live programming could be also 
banned because of the outside possibility that "offensive" speech 
_could_ occur.  That is why, in the 1984 Act, Congress decided that 
the much more sensible solution was to place any potential civil or 
criminal liability with the program creator exclusively, rather than 
the cable operator.  And so it should remain.

_Broadcasting & Cable_  seems to believe that cable operators should 
act _in loco parentis_  for adults and children alike.  But protecting 
the minds of adults from disagreeable opinions is not  a compelling 
state interest, only a patronizing and arrogant one.  Your masthead 
expresses a commitment to the First Amendment -- it is not qualified 
by the statement "for owners only."  We hope that you will not continue 
implicitly to add this qualification to your magazine's positions.

Sincerely,

Barry Forbes
Executive Director 


cc: _Broadcasting & Cable_ editorial staff

_________________________________________________
Alliance for Community Media
666 11th Street, NW, Suite 806, Washington, DC 20001-4542
Voice: (202) 393-2650  Fax: (202) 393-2653
"Ensuring everyone's access to electronic media since 1976."

Barry Forbes, Executive Director
"Do what's right. Do it right. Do it right now."
_________________________________________________

[CNI Home Page]