cw (09/28/82)
Some of the reasons for TV censorship and its existence as sanctioned by a government (or an agency) can be understood in light of the public utility theory. This is most obvious in the case of broadcasts (TV, radio, or what have you). The total number of channels is limited by physics; that is, there are just so many TV stations possible in an area. The right to use a frequency is regulated because non-regulation would lead to chaos. But the regulation also means that there is a certain need to consider the public good as perceived by the regulator. As it happens, I think that T&A shows like "Charlie's Angels" are considerably more reprehensible than centerfolds in Playboy because they promise more while delivering less (and what is delivered is wrapped in an envelope of moralism that is likely hypocritical). Nonetheless, most of public probably believes that the relatively mindless stuff that goes out on public TV is about right in terms of content. Hence, the TV stations and networks are filling their role as a public utility and serving the public weal while making money. The case of cable TV control is slightly more complicated. There are two more arguable points to consider. First, the installation of the cable likely requires at least the momentary tie-up of public facilities (like torn up roadways or blocked roads while the main cable is installed). Further, the cable almost certainly goes through, under, or over a great deal of public land and makes over utilities just that much more difficult to service. In particular, if the cables are on poles, they are unsightly. Second, economics usually dictates that only one cable system (like one phone company, power company, and so on) can survive in a community. Hence, the cable system is regulated as public utility and a monopoly (at least locally). This also obviously leads to conflicts. Once again, though, the regulators certainly must try to make the system conform somewhat to local needs and desires. Having said that, I think that there is a strong case that a cable system can not be barred out of hand because it might show something lewd. Further, with adequate physical safeguards (a key perhaps), a cable might be allowed to show almost anything. Just make the ON switch (who cares about the OFF switch?) one that a child can not operate without a guardian present. But the argument for allowing the cable system is that there is no inherent police power in the state to bar a normal business from an area. There is no hint of First Amendment; the reasoning is entirely economic. As a matter of fact, I have been wondering about all this First Amendment discussion. It doesn't seem much to apply here. I am not at all convinced that a cable system is an element of the "press". And "free speech" rights do not necessarily force me to listen to you in my living room. As I understand First Amendment history, it was primarily intended to keep political reporting open and to forbid censorship of meetings or private communications. Somehow, "Gidget Goes Erotic" doesn't fit these categories. In any case, "First Amendment" is not a shibboleth; it is a legal document. Shouting "First Amendment" at someone does not automatically win an argument for you. Charles