butterflyqueen --
Following is a summary of the main "pros and cons" of the desirability
and legality of preferring governmental to parental control of program
content on broadcast television. After this summary, I have included
links to some especially good source material on both sides that might
be of interest to you in preparing your own arguments.
LEGAL ARGUMENTS:
1. PRO: Broadcast television, especially network television, is the
most powerful and influential medium in this country. Because the
broadcast spectrum is owned by the public, the government has a
special right and responsibility to regulate television broadcasters'
use of the public's airwaves with that power and influence in mind.
CON: "The airwaves belong to the public" is a favorite perennial
argument of those wanting broad regulation of broadcasting that even
they agree would be unconstitutional for movies, newspapers, magazines
and even cable television. The Communications Act of 1934 was adopted
when broadcasting was in its infancy and was the only electronic mass
media on the horizon. The Act has been reconsidered, modified and
interpreted over the years to take into account changes in technology
and in the "video marketplace."
In today's communications marketplace, broadcast television is no
longer dominant. It faces burgeoning competition for people's leisure
time from other video media, as well as the Internet and a wide range
of other activities. Parents admittedly face a challenging
environment of violent and sexually explicit television, video games,
films, and websites. But approaches to this problem that invite more
government regulation of television program content alone can no
longer be legally justified on the basis of the special influence and
power of broadcasters.
2. PRO: The government allows broadcasters free use of the
radiofrequency spectrum on which they operate. This alone justifies
special regulation of television broadcasters.
CON: This was true of the first licensee of any broadcast station,
but that was many decades ago. Virtually all broadcasters have bought
all their curently owned stations from previous owners at a market
price that includes, of course, the expectation of operating on the
spectrum (channel) that goes with the station. Virtually all other
mass media also use some spectrum that has been assigned to licensees
free of charge, included direct-to-home satellite carriers and cable
services. Yet the government has used this argument to try to justify
much more content regulation in broadcasting that in those services.
3. PRO: Broadcasters are required by statute to operate in the
"public interest," which implies that the government can regulate
program content.
CON: The Communications Act (adopted first as the "Radio Act" in
1927) does require all regulated services, not just broadcasting, to
be licensed to operate in the "public interest, convenience and
necessity." (Section 307, Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
USC 307) But this provision was purposely vague, and, most
importantly, all regulation of broadcast program content must be
consistent with the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and a
free press. It is this fundamental First Amendment problem that makes
questionable special content regulation of broadcasting in today's
media marketplace.
POLICY ARGUMENTS:
1. PRO: Parents cannot be expected to police what their children view
on television, in part because they often work out of the home and
cannot supervise their children at all times.
CON: This is an appealing argument but it does not generally
justify government dictating television program content and banning
program material it finds offensive (beyond obscenity laws that apply
to all media). In any case, parents today have the benefit of
voluntary television program ratings and mandated so-called "v-chip"
technology that allow parents more control over the television viewing
by their children.
2. PRO: Since violence and sex on television are becoming so
prevalent all through the broadcast day, Congress and the Federal
Communications Commission should adopt rules that address the problem.
CON: Over and above the grave constitutional issues, there is an
age-old problem of defining objectionable violence and sexual themes.
Much of Shakespearean and Greek tragedy involves violent themes and
action. "Schindler's List" and many other important films and plays
involve such themes as well. Do we want politicians and bureaucrats
to define what violent acts are acceptable to portray? On what basis
could they possibly do that wisely and fairly? It is the parents' job
to be the advisor and regulator of their children.
3. PRO: Television violence has been shown to be the cause of violent
behavior in children and adults. Since violent crime is a such an
important problem in this country, there is a compelling need for
Congressional and FCC action to address the problem.
CON: There has always been controversy over the effect, if any, of
violence on television on the behavior of children and adults.
Assuming that there may be some correlation, there remains the issue
of whether government control of television program content is
appropriate or constitutional. As noted above, there has been some
recent voluntary or mandatory regulation based partially on the
possibility of such a correlation -- program ratings and the
requirement of "v-chip" technology in television sets. These
provisions are intended to empower parents, and that is the way to
address this situation.
Sources:
For the case for broad interpretation of the "public interest
standard" in broadcast regulation, see:
Benton Foundation: The Public Interest Standard In Television
Broadcasting
http://www.benton.org/PIAC/sec2.html
For the case for elimination of the "public interest standard" in
broadcast regulation, see:
Progress and Freedom Foundation Press Release (with link to Randoph
May article)
http://www.pff.org/Press%20Releases/pr060101PublicInterest.htm
For a more balanced view of the use of the "public interest standard"
in broadcast regulation, see:
The "Public Interest" Standard: The Elusive Search For The Holy Grail
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/pubintadvcom/octmtg/krasnow.htm
"The Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity:" The Museum of
Broadcast Communications
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/publicintere/publicintere.htm
The following link is to the current version of Communciations Act of
1934. The "public interest, convenience and necessity" language
applicable to all FCC licenses is in Section 307, which is on page 144
of this PDF document at the FCC's website:
Communications Act of 1934
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
Here is the FCC's explanation of the "v-chip" and its empowerment of
parents:
"V-Chip: Viewing Television Responsibly"
http://www.fcc.gov/vchip/
Search Strategy:
Review of FCC materials at:
http://www.fcc.gov
"public interest, convenience and necessity"
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22public+interest%2C+convenience+and+necessity%22
v-chip
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=v%2Dchip+
"public interest standard"
://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=%22public+interest+standard%22
I hope this helps. If any of the above needs clarification, please
let me know.
markj-ga |
