Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407654
 


 



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

1987

Fordham Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 459, 1987

Abstract:     
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 It shows that Pacifica is unsupportable and technologically outdated.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

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: May 21, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Winer, Laurence H., The Signal Cable Sends, Part II - Interference from the Indecency Cases? (1987). Fordham Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 459, 1987. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407654

Contact Information

Laurence H. Winer (Contact Author)
Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law ( email )
Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 268
Downloads: 5

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.297 seconds