When Google and Verizon unveiled their joint net neutrality policy proposal, in which the FCC would play a central role in governing the internet, I mentioned how the the FCC might not be the kind of institution you’d want to hand over control to over your pornography life line (also known as the internet). Over the past few days, the FCC pretty much reiterated just why they are no the right people to govern the web.
In Google’s and Verizon’s joint policy proposal, the FCC would be the one to oversee net neutrality on the wired internet, while also keeping eye on the non-neutral wireless internet and the proposed internet++. In passing, I already made the remark that the FCC might not be the right kind of organisation for this task.
I’ll explain why, and luckily, the FCC itself is helping a great deal in making this explanation much easier. Over the past few years, the FCC has been involved in a court case with several US broadcast networks who claim that the FCC’s strict indecency rules and fines covering profanity and nudity are unfair.
This case has been bouncing back and forth a few times, but the latest volley comes from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York who struck down the FCC’s indecency policy, stating it is a violation of the First Amendment. Since we’re dealing with lots of people from Foreign on OSAlert (including myself, actually), the First Amendment is the freedom of speech and religion part of the US Bill of Rights.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that a government institution issuing fines for profanities on broadcasting networks is a direct violation of this First Amendment. The FCC, however, disagrees, building on the usual “think of the children!”-argumentation so many politicians – the world over – are so very fond of.
“The three-judge panel’s decision in July raised serious concerns about the Commission’s ability to protect children and families from indecent broadcast programming,” FCC general counsel Austin Schlick told The Hill, “The Commission remains committed to empowering parents and protecting children, and looks forward to the court of appeals’ further consideration of our arguments.”
As we all know – surely the parents among our audience – it is the job of television networks to raise and protect our children. Some might believe that it is the parents’ job to take care of their children and shield them from things they may not be ready for, but those people are just being silly and quaint, of course.
There’s a lobby group for letting television networks – instead of parents – raise children. They’re called the Parents Television Council, and have a very snazzy tagline: “Because our children are watching”. This lobby group obviously sides with the FCC.
“The FCC’s challenge of the Second Circuit ruling is an important step in the right direction. Without Supreme Court action, the Second Circuit ruling would kick down the door for indecent content to be aired at any time of day over the public airwaves – even in front of children,” said Parents Television Council President Tim Winter.
And we wouldn’t want that, would we? Can you imagine what horrors we would bestow upon our children if they see an exposed breast or hear the ‘f’-word? Or, worse yet, if they see an exposed penis? I mean, the damage done by that copy of Playboy magazine I found when I was 12 is still visible today, and let’s not even speak of the consequences of me finding out my hotel room in Sweden had a porn channel when I was 15. My crippling addiction to heroin, cocaine, and unicorn dust can be traced back to that very moment.
Joking aside, this is a very serious matter. One of the strengths of the internet is not just the neutrality on the infrastructure level, but also on the content level. You can find whatever you want on the internet, and you’re free to do as you please. Having the FCC police it, fining ISPs or whatever for not blocking porn sites or, well, profanities would do major damage to the web – damage that would extend far beyond US borders.
I can assure you that several governments all over the world – including the despicable one here in The Netherlands – are more than happy to copy the FCC model of policing the media. This particular case will most likely find its way back to the Supreme Court, which will have to decide once and for all if the FCC’s policies are constitutional or not.
Without addressing the merits of whether the FCC ought to be policing the internet, I’ll point out that the Supreme Court has ruled (repeatedly, I think) that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment. Hence, whether the 2nd Circuit Court is correct likely depends on whether profanities count as obscenities. There, I will not venture to go.
That said, doesn’t the FCC also have jurisdiction over cable? In that case, Thom, your worries about not getting your pr0n fix while in these Puritan States of America are totally unfounded. (Thanks for sheltering us those few years a few centuries back, btw.)
Just because the Supreme Court says something doesn’t mean it’s still not unconstitutional. It just means there’s not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it.
So who do you think should protect children? Who should take a stand against things like child porn or exploited women?
How did you go from Janet’s nipple and Bono’s fcuk to child porn and forced prostitution?
Child porn falls under abuse…abuse is already illegal in the United States.
I believe women have a choice on whether they want to appear naked having sex on film (other than rape…which is illegal…already a law against that).
Why do we need another oversight committee telling us what we can and cannot do?
Well, the children’s parents for one.
Secondly, women porn stars are much better paid then male porn stars, and 100,000s of University chicks are camming their way through university as we speak. Who’s exploiting who?
Thirdly, police should handle child porn, it’s a criminal offense.
Edited 2010-08-28 13:29 UTC
“100,000s of University chicks are camming their way through university as we speak. Who’s exploiting who?”
that’s what’s (indirectly) caused the high inflation of tuition fees?
why won’t someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!??
Uhm, here’s a wild guess…the parents.
FCC does not govern the web, it governs what and how ISP can and cant do when providing access to the web to their american customers in america.
The google and verison deal is about what and how ISP can and cant do when providing access to their customers in different distribution media(wired vs wireless) in america.
The title appear to be correct only to an american who is in american and think nobody else outside american is accessing the web,this isnt correct and hence the title isnt correct.
I agree.
but, of all the companies or governing boards I am most concerned about knowing my browsing habits (AKA, where poundsmack finds his porn), Google comes out on top followed closely after by Facebook.
Thom, I understand your concerns over the FCC trying to regulate net neutrality. I, and most other supporters of net neutrality, do not want to see any government entity censor any content on the internet. I don’t even believe the FCC should have the power to censor network television (if you’re that worried about your kids, use the V-Chip inside your television to block adult content).
But in the U.S. the FCC is the only logical choice for an organization to regulate net neutrality. Sure, Congress could create a law that outlines the terms of neutrality and bans everyone from violating those terms, but you need an organization to enforce those laws. We could create another organization for enforcement, but it makes more sense to use the FCC since it is already in charge of regulating broadband. We just need need to be vigilant if the FCC ever attempted to censor content over the internet – that’s a responsibility of all citizens living in a republic and applies to all areas of government oversight.
I also think maybe the title is not correct. I think since Thom is understandably not a US citizen he didn’t understand the nuance between FCC censorship on TV and the Internet. I don’t see anything in ‘thehill’ article about the Internet or web.
Edited 2010-08-27 21:37 UTC
Of course there’s nothing in that article about the internet. All I use the article for is to illustrate just what kind of an organisation the FCC really is, i.e., one you don’t want overseeing the internet.
Oh, right! Yes I definitely don’t want to see the FCC overseeing the Internet! Absolutely. That’s a nightmare scenario as far as I’m concerned.
Edit: And yes, I think Net Neutrality would indeed open up a huge can of worms as far as FCC oversight on the Internet.
Edited 2010-08-27 21:41 UTC
Tom sorry I thought the main newsbit of the headline was ‘thehill’ link in the blurb but after you replied I found your writeup. Great article and I agree, if that matters. Unfortunately, there has been a huge corporate PR campaign from Internet content providers such as Google who have been very successful in creating a lot of hysteria in support of Network Neutrality which likely would, as you point out, be administered by the FCC.
I’ve been doing what I can to keep the Internet free from FCC oversight and I also agree with the previous story here on OSAlert that rightly pointed out that free and open competition is far more powerful to keep the Internet neutral. I believe that if we end the government-granted duopoly, we won’t need FCC or government regulation to keep the Internet free because consumer choice is a very powerful force, more powerful than the FCC or Congress.
what makes you think the FCC would regulate the internet like broadcast TV instead of cable TV?
Because it comes down to how they define the services. The FCC does regulate cable TV, it is just the decency laws do not apply because they are not broadcast. The comparison to how the FCC wants to govern the internet is more akin to telecoms. Because broadcast “pushes” the signal over the open airways, anyone can receive the signals whether they want it or not. Telecoms, cable, and internet are not broadcast or pushed over public airways but through private/public networks. More specifically you have the option whether to receive voice, data, or TV through a private service.
I never dreamt of viewing George Carlin on OSAlert, seriously.
Thumbs up for the inclusion.
The FCC regulates the content of broadcast television because the electromagnetic spectrum is considered a Public Good, cable television and the Internet are not.
If you’d get off your “suppression of porn” and “the U.S. is so backwards with X/Y/Z” rants, I might find your articles would be more interesting, Thom.
The dead horse isn’t just beaten, it’s being whipped to a bloody pulp. Ditch the clich~A(c)s, trite phrases, and verbal tics that would basically make it easy for a ghost writer to come in and write your articles.
His articles _are_ written by a ghost writer.
Thoms “… crippling addiction to heroin, cocaine, and unicorn dust” tragically led to his death back in 2009. Not from OD, but from being impaled on a unicorn horn.
That’s right kids of usa. If not for the FCC you’d all be gored by rabid unicorns hopped-up on coke and crack.
Edited 2010-08-28 21:50 UTC
Why are so many non-Americans even worried about this to make comments? The FCC has absolutely no jurisdiction outside of the US. Your EU porn servers are safe! Replace “EU” with the non-US country of your choice.
Well, most of the TLD infrastructure is located in USA.
Most of the worlds internet-traffic passes through the US.
If FCC is mandated to uphold net neutrality, how do one define which internet traffic FCC should govern and not?
The fear (IMHO) in us non-US-ians is that the US’ net neutrality laws’ effect would spread throughout the world ’cause of the largely centralized structure of the net’s large hubs and TLD servers, both of which are by and large located in the US.
Edited 2010-08-28 21:52 UTC
Thom’s article is alarmist FUD. The FCC doesn’t monitor the net now and they don’t want to monitor it in the future. As for net neutrality being mandated, that’s FUD too. For the most part, US citizens and the US government alike want nothing to do with net neutrality. We’re fairly satisfied with the net as it is.
As for most internet traffic originating in foreign countries having to pass thru the US, all I can say is that you’re misinformed. Germans wanting to peruse porn on German web sites do so without ANY data passing to/from the US and it would remain so even if Thom’s big, bad, FCC did enforce net neutrality….which they won’t. Replace Germany with the country of your choice in the sentence above.
Frankly, I’m getting very tired of Thom’s “Chicken Little” articles where he paints the US as some sort of bogey man that’s gonna getcha. The sky isn’t falling and the US has no desire to police the world’s porn, not even Thom’s porn. Why doesn’t he pick on North Korea? Oh, that’s right. The net is restricted there and Thom wouldn’t be able to get any info from them. And it would require more effort and real research to write a story about them as well. The US is an easy target, especially when his audience seems to be made up almost completely of non-US citizens who don’t understand the FCC’s role here or what’s going on in the US in general.
Is that a fact? Do you really think intra-europe and intra-asia traffic (which is a lot) does a detour to the U.S? Heck, you could even pass traffic from europe to asia without going via the U.S if necessary.
It makes us feel superior.
The author doesn’t seem familiar with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling made a number of years ago which makes a very clear distinction between cable television and over-the-air broadcast television with regard to indecency — and I believe that the ruling in that case is very applicable to any indecency regulation of the Internet by the FCC. In short, the Court said that since people invite cable into their homes it will not be judged by the same standard as over-the-air broadcast television. All you have to do is compare what is shown and said on cable vs. regular television and it is clear that there’s no indecency regulation on cable … sure, some of the more basic cable channels might police themselves in certain ways, but you can absolutely get “indecent” programming on cable.
My second point is — in response to the author’s claim that “I can assure you that several governments all over the world – including the despicable one here in The Netherlands – are more than happy to copy the FCC model of policing the media” — that the author fundamentally misunderstands a basic point: if you look at European media regulators you will see that they scratch their heads at how much violence the U.S. allows on television; and the U.S. scratches its head over how much sex is allowed on European television. So, I wouldn’t at all say that governments are more than happy to police via the adoption of an FCC model. Additionally, given the existence of the U.S. First Amendment, there are restrictions on speech proscriptions that don’t exist in other places. Many European nations have laws against speech that would be “protected” here in the U.S. (I’m not saying one is better than the other, just that it’s different).
There might be lots of reasons that would make FCC Internet regulation problematic, but I don’t think the author has raised any of these issues.