Atmosphere ripe for further regulation of broadcast media, say panelists
By Cheryl Arvidson
The Freedom Forum Online
10.25.00
|
| Jack Valenti |
Internet stokes regulatory urge against 'too much free speech,' speakers say
ARLINGTON, Va. — Notwithstanding the First Amendment's guards against government interference with a free press, pressure is building on both the Supreme Court and in Congress to regulate the content of broadcast media in an effort to control acts of violence, said panelists at a one-day conference yesterday.
During the discussion "Regulation of the Electronic Media: Is Content King or Does Government Reign," participants agreed that the atmosphere is ripe for further restrictions on the broadcast media even though other media outlets such as newspapers and the motion picture industry enjoy more First Amendment rights. The discussion was part of "The Electronic Media and the First Amendment in the 21st Century" conference sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation.
Paul McMasters, First Amendment ombudsman for The Freedom Forum, said "the media itself has been a problem on the particular issue" of whether violent content in entertainment programs is prompting more violent behavior on America's streets. He said the media have been "unquestioningly parroting" the contention of content-restriction advocates that 1,000 studies have proven that there is a "causal link" between entertainment programming and violence.
In fact, McMasters said, there have only been around 200 studies done on the question, and the results have been anything but definitive in terms of finding a link between violent television programs, movies and record lyrics and violent behavior. However, the perception is otherwise, he said, and as a result, pressure to clamp restraints on violent content will continue.
"We'll see more of that, and particularly from Congress," McMasters predicted.
In addition, he said, he expects Congress to seek additional content controls on television by "more fine-tuning" of legislation requiring v-chips on television sets.
"The First Amendment has become not something to celebrate but something to circumnavigate," McMasters said. "Regulation of speech is invariably proposed for the best reasons but with the worst results."
Thomas G. Krattenmaker, a Washington communications lawyer and former Federal Communications Commission staff member, said although most people agree that content regulation for electronic media is a bad idea, the members of the FCC tend to get involved in the activity for three reasons.
The first is the belief by some on the commission that they are the "handmaidens of Congress," there to do the bidding of politicians who are quick to pick up on the public sentiment in regard to certain issues, he said. The second reason is that commission members often view themselves as "selfless, public-spirited people trying to serve a public-interest goal" with their actions. And third, commission members sometimes act to slow the impact of economic change and cushion its impact on the broadcast industry.
"We'll get content regulation when these three areas converge," Krattenmaker said.
Such a convergence is occurring now in regard to "sex, smut and indecency," he said. However, he said he doubted that the FCC would move into another controversial area of government regulation and require electronic media outlets to give free airtime to political candidates.
But Daniel E. Troy, another Washington lawyer and First Amendment specialist, said he thinks the broadcast fairness doctrine absolutely is open to revision, especially if Vice President Al Gore wins the White House in November. Troy, who also is an associate scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he would expect other forms of restrictions as well under a Gore administration.
"I'm sorry to say that if Al Gore is elected, I think we're going to see more content regulation," he said.
Gore's wife, Tipper, has been an outspoken critic of violent music lyrics, and Gore himself has said he would require quick action by the entertainment industry on a set of voluntary restraints on marketing tactics or he would seek legislative action.
 |
| Newton Minow |
Newton Minow, a former FCC chairman during the Kennedy administration and now a lawyer and professor in the Chicago area, said the broadcast media face restrictions because too much attention has been given to broadcasters' rights and not enough to their responsibilities.
He quoted former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: "We confuse the right to say and do something with whether it is the right thing to do."
"I think it's about time that we talk about what the responsibility of the people in the industry is" as well as their First Amendment rights, Minow said. "I think we've got to get off the issue of rights and talk about what is the right thing to do."
Cameron DeVore, a Seattle lawyer who specializes in First Amendment cases, picked up on Minow's comments and said he worries that "the extraordinary hostility in this country about the news media" may eventually influence the courts and Congress to chip away at the First Amendment's mandate to "make no law" restricting freedom of the press.
He said he worries that some in the media view the First Amendment "as a sort of antitrust exemption." Although the Supreme Court has so far been fairly good on First Amendment issues, he said if the courts begin to view the media outlets as abusing their public trust just to make money, there could be "a storm cloud out there." The media must not "forget that they live in this broad political environment," DeVore said, because "the Supreme Court will change over time. These things will change. None of these things are immutable."
Earlier, Jack Valenti, CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, issued a rallying cry in support of the First Amendment during a luncheon speech.
Calling the 45 words in the First Amendment "freedom's music," Valenti praised the amendment for its simplicity and its concise, clear wording. But, he cautioned, being a defender of the First Amendment is not always easy.
"You have to allow into the marketplace that which you might personally consider to be tawdry, vulgar and profane," he said, adding that "sometimes you want to call Congress" and say pass a law and "protect me from this slime."
But, Valenti said, "Be wary and be cautious because throughout history, when a tyrant first approaches, he always comes as your protector."