The Signal Cable Sends, Part II - Interference from the Indecency Cases?
Laurence H. Winer
Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Fordham Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 459, 1987
Part I of this Article surveys generally the development of content regulation in broadcasting and, specifically, control over indecent programming, culminating in Pacifica. It shows that Pacifica is unsupportable and technologically outdated. Censoring anything except legal obscenity, therefore, should be improper in both cable and broadcasting. Part II examines the distinctions between cable and broadcasting asserted in the case law to exclude cable from indecency regulation. Part III demonstrates that these asserted distinctions are unconvincing and inimical to the broader goal of viewing cable and broadcasting as fungible to afford each the same first amendment status as the print media. The approach of the cable indecency cases, therefore, should be abandoned.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 69
Keywords: Censorship, content regulation, cable
Date posted: May 21, 2009
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.656 seconds