-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, satellite,senator insists [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:33:45 -0800 From: Clinton D. Fein <clinton.fein@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Unfortunately you are right on target Declan. What I propose is that when a politician, duly elected, such as Senator Ted Stevens, decides to legislate "decency" with such an obvious and predictable outcome, the costs involved in every single aspect, including the cost of wasting the government's and Supreme Court's time (and every attendant administrative cost from copying, printing, filing, electricity, space, time, motions etc.) should be absorbed by the state of Alaska. Ted Stevens may not pay politically, but his constituents would pay in cold hard cash. Perhaps it will deter politicians from abusing the constitution and legal system for the purpose of political grandstanding. At the very least, it would help narrow the community standards requirement -- necessary for obscenity determinations (and his only chance of gaining legal traction with this). After all, if "obscenity" has a legally sufficient although impossible-to-truly-measure (Miller) standard, so too should indecency. Let Alaskans have their cable regulated by Ted Stevens, and watch how quickly he remains in office, or how little he pays politically. Clinton _____________________ Clinton Fein 555 Florida Street, #407 San Francisco, CA 94110 Email: clinton@private www.clintonfein.com _____________________ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, satellite, senator insists [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 18:19:50 -0800 (PST) From: Tracey Levin <tracey12_12@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, Of course the net will be regulated. In the past several years, you've documented the closing hand of government control over the net. What former CIA leader called for the end of the Wild West on the net? The Internet is just new ground for regulation. Government regulates, controls, robs. Now, satellite radio falls to its control. There must be money for the feds somewhere in the equation. Tracey -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, satellite,senator insists [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:24:41 -0800 From: todd glassey <todd.glassey@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <20050301135234.B5534@private> Declan wait until WiMax happens and its range is extended into the hundreds of miles - What you will see is WiMax Satellites and that will be that - poof the entire information interchange in a single form factor. The implications are mind boggling but all wind up with the FCC running everything. No need for the NTIA or any other of half a dozen governmental agencies anymore so this might actually be good in that it would eliminate a bunch of Governmental Spending that was un-needed T. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Indecency rules must apply to cable, satellite,senator insists [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 14:15:54 -0500 From: ben@private <ben@private> To: declan@private He doesn't have the legal footing to stand on, because unlike the "public" and "free" broadcast TV airwaves, cable and satellite are private and restricted. The courts have held that the decency standard applies to broadcast because it is "pervasive" but cable and satellite are not. However, FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin (who would really, really like to be FCC Chairman) has noted that satellite TV does use frequencies leased from the "public" (re: FCC) so because of this, the decency standard might apply. There is a de facto decency standard in use today on cable and pay-TV, but it really is voluntary, and pay-TV operators do not face the same risk of fines that terrestrial broadcasters do if they violate "voluntary" decency standards. But the government doesn't really have the power to restrict what cable and satellite operators can do with their private networks. It would be like telling people they can't do certain things in their bedroom, or forcing restaurant and bar owners to ban smoking in their establishments. Or banning personal drug use. Oh, wait... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, satellite, senator insists [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:20:46 -0700 From: dmercer@private To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <20050301135234.B5534@private> Senator Stevens seems to have forgotten that Congress' power to prescribe decency rules for broadcast TV and radio rests on the fact that those media are (or were, at the time of the rules adoption) of a scarce, public commons nature (spectra), and that they pass threw and are recievable by anyone, such as a child with a portable TV. He forgets that cable and satellite must be explicitly subscribed to by an adult. He'd ban with prior restraint speech that takes an overt action to hear. Toast in front of the Supremes, but how long would it take to get there? -David Mercer Tucson, AZ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] "Indecency" rules must apply to cable, satellite, senator insists [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:32:26 -0500 From: J.D. Abolins <jabolins@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <20050301135234.B5534@private> Going on a fanciful pondering, if the FCC coverage applied to the Internet, what some other prospects besides indecency ruling? Licensing of Internet "broadcasters"? Some cases might already FCC-regulated genre: Internet radio and various streaming multimedia sites. But there are many others who publish or distribute via the Internet. Would something analogous to the FCC Amateur Radio license be instituted? That might not be so unlikely as it might first seem. The notion of some type of license or permit to go online has been tossed about over the past decade or so as a way to reduce crime and other problems as well as to raise the overall level of user competancy. (Would a licensing requirement really reduce crime is open for debate. Just let's not use the motor vehicle licensing approach. <g>) Perhaps an FCC for the Internet model might consider "distributors" as well as "broadcasters" and try to make ISP responsible for material going out from them. The internation nature of the Internet would, however, challenge an application of current FCC approaches. To my understanding, the FCC covers broadcasting within the USA but has little, if any say, with satellite broadcasts or shortwave transmissions originating outside of the USA and not relayed in the USA. Anyway, these were just fanciful musings. J.D. Abolins _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 22:55:51 PST