Will Indecency Laws Strike Cable TV Next?

It might not be constitutional, but that may be beside the point when it comes to a proposal that carries strong political appeal in some quarters: Never mind channel-blocking technologies, the V-chip or the "off" button. Some in Congress believe it's time to regulate cable television to keep racy programming out of American homes altogether. Top congressional leaders last week said they want to subject not just cable TV but satellite TV and radio to the same indecency regulations faced by traditional over-the-air broadcasters. With the debate in Washington just beginning, it is not clear whether restrictions would apply only to basic tiers or to premium cable programming such as HBO's The Sopranos as well. But it is obvious that top lawmakers are offended by what they see on the tube—or they feel their constituents are. And they want to do something about it. Cable is a "much greater violator in the indecency area" than broadcast, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Ala., told an appreciative audience of state broadcast executives gathered in Washington by the National Association of Broadcasters. "They must live up to the same standards we apply to you." Stevens chairs the Senate Commerce Committee, which last year came within a vote of extending indecency regulation to cable. Stevens voted against but only to avoid weighing down legislation that would have raised fines for broadcast indecency (that bill later failed). Stevens' counterpart, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chair of the House Commerce Committee, also weighed in. "It's not fair to subject over-the-air broadcasters to one set of rules and … subject cable and satellite to no rules," Barton told reporters. Broadcasters like the idea of forcing competitors to wear their shackles, which amount to a prohibition on indecent speech and visuals between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are likely to be watching. "Congress and the [Federal Communications Commission] should be troubled that the current law unwittingly creates a safe haven for indecent programming on other media platforms," Andrew Levin, evp and chief legal officer for radio giant Clear Channel Communications, said in a Feb. 23 press release. The lawmakers' interest leaves cable to play defense. The trade group for big cable companies, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, quickly raised what it called "serious First Amendment objections." Cable lobbyists will be sure to point out that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that cable television, a private network that customers pay to hook into, rightly faces fewer restrictions than broadcast, which uses public airwaves. But with most TV homes taking cable these days, many legislators say it is cable that is now pervasive. Still, a more basic appeal may be at play. Take it from Stevens: "In this country, there need to be standards," he said. On Thursday, outgoing FCC chairman Michael Powell said extending indecency regulation to cable was probably unconstitutional, since cable enjoys more significant First Amendment protections than broadcast. "When Congress takes a hard look at this, if they really study the constitutionality, they'll find, as they have before, that it's difficult and unwise to extend" the regulations to cable, Powell said on Fox News Channel's Your World with Neil Cavuto. The FCC on Friday rejected complaints against the show Nip/Tuck on Fox's FX Network. "The commission does not regulate cable indecency," the agency said in an order.

Brand Marketing

Will Indecency Laws Strike Cable TV Next?

Todd Shields

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Todd Shields