THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, November 14, 1995 TAG: 9511140117
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A4 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium: 65 lines
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Congress' first venture into fighting smut on cable television violates free-speech rights.
The battleground is public-access channels and those leased by cable systems to local groups.
Opponents of a 1992 cable law that aims to restrict indecent programs on such channels say it will encourage censorship in violation of the Constitution's First Amendment.
A decision upholding the measure could spur Congress to impose further restrictions on indecency, perhaps on commercial cable television channels or on-line computer services, said I. Michael Greenberger, lawyer for local program producers and viewers challenging the 1992 law.
Congress enacted the measure proposed by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., following complaints about lewd programs on some leased-access channels.
The government says indecent programs depict or describe ``sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner,'' based on contemporary community standards.
Indecent material is protected by the First Amendment, while programs judged obscene have no free-speech protection.
The cable television law applies to channels that cable companies lease to local groups, as well as those set aside for public, educational and government access. Commercial channels such as HBO and USA Network are not affected.
Before 1992, cable TV systems could not bar indecent programs from leased-access and public-access channels, and they were protected from liability for any programs that crossed the line into obscenity.
Cable companies provided lock boxes so subscribers could block channels they did not want to see.
The 1992 law allows cable companies to bar indecent material from public-access or leased-access channels. Companies that decide to show indecent programs must separate them on blocked channels that can be unblocked only on a subscriber's written request.
The law, which has not taken effect pending the legal challenge to it, also makes cable companies liable for any programs that violate obscenity laws. ILLUSTRATION: IN OTHER ACTION
Agreed to study the case of a North Carolinian fired after his
supervisor said he was too old ``for this kind of work.'' The man
was fired at 56 and replaced by a 40-year-old.
Rejected an appeal by a lesbian mother seeking to prevent her
former lover from having any place in her 6-year-old son's life. A
Wisconsin court is allowing the ex-lover to seek visitation.
Kept alive a Michigan lawsuit by families seeking damages because
corneas or eyeballs were removed from recently deceased relatives
without family consent.
Refused to hear the appeal of former Rep. Albert Bustamante,
D-Texas, who was convicted of racketeering and accepting an illegal
gift.
Rejected an appeal by a San Francisco man convicted and sentenced
to death for seven slayings in California parks in 1980 and 1981.
KEYWORDS: SUPREME COURT by CNB