THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, June 29, 1996 TAG: 9606290229
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY DAVID G. SAVAGE, LOS ANGELES TIMES
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: 82 lines
In another broad defense of the right to free speech, the Supreme Court on Friday struck down most of a four-year-old law that required cable television operators to restrict sexually explicit programs on special channels that are open to the public.
The court agreed on the ``need to protect children from exposure to patently offensive sex-related material,'' but noted that parents can block sexually oriented channels by calling their local cable company. And it found only a ``few borderline examples'' of indecent conduct on local ``public access'' channels.
For these reasons, Congress went too far when it told cable operators to ``police'' their programming on these special channels, the Supreme Court said.
``The First Amendment embodies an overarching commitment to protect speech from government regulation,'' wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer for the court.
As a practical matter, the rulings leave it mostly to parents to supervise what their children see on television.
``These decisions should be made by parents, not by the government through censorship regulations,'' said Marjorie Heins, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented a broadcaster that challenged the 1992 law.
What Friday's ruling means for ``indecency'' on the Internet is unclear. The splintered decision in the cable case yielded six opinions covering 118 pages, and several justices made it clear that they did not want to commit themselves in advance to deciding a case that has not yet arrived.
But it will arrive soon. The Justice Department said Friday it will ask the Supreme Court to revive a new law that seeks to protect children from ``indecent'' material on the Internet, which was struck down two weeks ago by a panel of federal judges in Philadelphia.
The court will take up the issue in the fall. It is expected to issue its final decisions for this session on Monday and adjourn for the summer.
The cable TV dispute did not concern most of what is seen on these systems. As a general rule, cable operators can decide whether to carry programs or channels that might be offensive to their viewers.
However, Congress in 1984 required cable systems to set aside a few channels that would be open to the public or could be leased by those who would pay to get their message out. What appeared on the air was up to the programmers and performers.
Public access channels became the amateur hour of the air, but lawmakers also heard reports of nudity and lewd talk on these channels.
In response, in 1992 Congress amended the law to say that cable operators can forbid ``patently offensive'' sex shows on leased channels. The law also required them to prohibit ``any programming which contains obscene material (or) sexually explicit conduct'' on public access channels.
The law was challenged on free-speech grounds, not by cable operators, but by programmers and public-interest groups that have used these special channels.
On a 5-4 vote, the court left the public access channels free of regulation by cable operators. It ``could radically change present programming'' arrangements if cable companies were given the power to oversee what appears on these free-form programs, the court said. This category also includes local educational and government programs.
On a 6-3 vote, the justices struck down a second provision that required cable operators to block sexually explicit leased channels unless a subscriber asked for them in writing 30 days in advance. Because a new law essentially reverses that process - requiring cable companies to block such programming only when a subscriber requests it - there is no need for the old law, the court said.
On a 7-2 vote, however, the court upheld the provision that ``permits cable operators either to allow or to forbid the transmission of patently offensive sex-related materials on leased channels.'' MEMO: SELF-CENSORING
Since 1984, cable companies have provided lock boxes so subscribers
can block out channels they do not want to see.
Cable companies in Hampton Roads - Cox Communications, TCI and Falcon
- offer a feature called Parental Lock Out, which enables a cable
company by request to block selected channels from coming into the
household. Parents can request that several channels, or whole groups of
channels, be blocked. It's a free service to cable subscribers. by CNB