Faculty Scholarship Repository
A Service of the Ross-Blakley Law Library
| Article |
| The Signal Cable Sends, Part II - Interference From The Indecency Cases? |
| Laurence Winer |
| 55 Fordham L. Rev. 459 (1987) |
| Open Access | Library Access |
|
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 It shows that Pacifica is unsupportable and technologically outdated.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.Censorship, content regulation, cable |
| 13,162 |
| Total Views |