Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.metro From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Public-access cable could be censored under a new law Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 15:30:30 EST Message-ID: \SE B;METROPOLITAN \HD Public-access cable could be censored under a new law \BY Laurie Kellman \CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES When a racy public-access television program was aired last Friday on Arlington cable, the cable operator had no option but to show it. A provision in a new federal law could change that soon, however, to the discomfort of many cable operators who could soon have to decide whether to censor public access shows. "I can see libel suits up the ying-yang," said Thomas Waldrop, chief operating officer for Media General Cable of Fairfax. "Who's to say that I'm the arbiter of good taste? Someone's going to disagree with me. In the long haul, it creates such aggravation for the people who franchise it that they'll pull access programming," he said. The Cable TV Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 for the first time allows cable-franchise operators to review public-access programs before they are aired. The provision, proposed by Sen. Wyche Fowler Jr.,, Georgia Democrat, makes operators liable for the content of public-access shows. It won't take effect until next year, after federal communications officials receive comments from the public. But the provision has already become as controversial as the highly publicized act was this year. Supporters say it allows cable operators to mold public-access shows to obscenity laws, thereby preventing "obscene" material from reaching viewers while children are awake. "The new law at least allows the cable operator to say no. Beforehand, it was an unclear issue," said Steve Phillips, a legislative aide to Sen. Jesse Helms, North Carolina Republican, who supported the measure. "It's absurd to argue that cable operators should be forced to carry sexually explicit programs against their will. They need to have some control over the situation." Cable operators worry that control means liablity, and opponents say the law violates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech. A spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union said yesterday that the organization plans to file suit over the provision. "Public access is held by the courts as the electronic realization of the First Amendment," said Paul LaValley, executive director of Arlington Community Television, which airs Channel 33. No matter who is offended by what, cable-access channels were established to provide "a forum that is not controlled by the cable operator," said David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University who specializes in constitutional law. "By design, they're supposed to be like a public park, open to everyone." "Midnight Madness," a twice-weekly show that aired last Friday at 9 p.m. on Arlington cable Channel 33, is an example of programming targeted by the law. In the program, Esmirelda, a local singer, strummed several tunes that had sexual overtones. One song, for example, was about masturbating with a sneaker. Several songs contained profanity. Cable TV Arlington, the distributor, had no control over the programming under a 1984 law that requires operators to run publicaccess channels without editorial control. Only the producer can be held responsible for the content. But when the new law takes effect, Cable TV Arlington could require the producer to submit a tape of the show before it is aired. The operator could then approve, reject or modify the program. "One issue in particular would be live programming," said Lynn Mazur, president of the Board of Directors for Channel 33. "If cable operators in the future are forced to preview materials, how would that situation work?" She said the current system lets viewers vote on a show's content "with their remote controls." One cable operator said he wouldn't have aired the show, with or without the new law. "I would rather face a lawsuit over the First Amendment than air something like that," said Roger Wells, regional vice president for Metrovision in Prince George's County. "I don't think I need to be a censor to find some things offensive." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM