In the 1978 case of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Supreme Court held that, because over-the-air broadcast media is like an "unwanted intruder" in the home that is uniquely accessible to children, the FCC has a role in maintaining the cleanliness of the transmissions. Because of these unique characteristics, the regulation of broadcast media was held to a lesser constitutional standard than other types of media.
That ruling was largely based on the technology of the time: three channels, little cable, and no VCRs, much less Internet, DVDs, and satellite TV. Since that time, the FCC has regulated broadcasts under that lower constitutional standard, including fining stations for so-called "fleeting expletives" uttered by celebrities on live TV shows.
Believing that Pacifica had been obviated by technological change, Cato has joined forces on an amicus curiae brief (PDF) with a wide range of groups advocating freedom in technology policy to underscore for the Court just how different the world is today from 1978.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on January 9.
Believing that Pacifica had been obviated by technological change, Cato has joined forces on an amicus curiae brief (PDF) with a wide range of groups advocating freedom in technology policy to underscore for the Court just how different the world is today from 1978.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on January 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment