The Signal Cable Sends, Part II - Interference from the Indecency Cases?

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

69 Pages Posted: 21 May 2009

See all articles by Laurence H. Winer

Laurence H. Winer

Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Date Written: 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 It shows that Pacifica is unsupportable and technologically outdated.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.

Keywords: Censorship, content regulation, cable

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: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1407654

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

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
16
Abstract Views
854
PlumX Metrics