{
  "id": "RL33170",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33170",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 347526,
      "date": "2008-03-17",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T03:35:04.492131",
      "title": "Constitutionality of Applying the FCC\u2019s Indecency Restriction to Cable Television",
      "summary": "Various federal officials have spoken in favor of extending the Federal Communication Commission\u2019s indecency restriction, which currently applies to broadcast television and radio, to cable and satellite television. This report examines whether such an extension would violate the First Amendment\u2019s guarantee of freedom of speech.\nThe FCC\u2019s indecency restriction was enacted pursuant to a federal statute that, insofar as it was found constitutional, requires the FCC to promulgate regulations to prohibit the broadcast of indecent programming from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The FCC has found that, for material to be \u201cindecent,\u201d it \u201cmust describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities,\u201d and \u201cmust be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.\u201d\nIn 1978, in Pacifica, the Supreme Court held that, because broadcast radio and television have a \u201cuniquely pervasive presence\u201d and are \u201cuniquely accessible to children,\u201d the government may, during certain times of day, prohibit \u201c[p]atently offensive, indecent material\u201d on these media. In 1996, however, a Supreme Court plurality held that, with respect to \u201chow pervasive and intrusive [television] programming is . . . cable and broadcast television differ little, if at all.\u201d\nThen, in 2000, the Court held that governmental restrictions on speech on cable television are, unlike those on broadcast media, entitled to strict scrutiny. Thus, whereas, in Pacifica, the Court upheld a restriction on \u201cindecent\u201d material on broadcast media without applying strict scrutiny, the Court apparently would not uphold a comparable restriction on \u201cindecent\u201d material on cable television unless the restriction served a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.\nIt seems uncertain whether the Court would find that denying minors access to \u201cindecent\u201d material on cable television would constitute a compelling governmental interest. Assuming that it would, then, whether or not there is a less restrictive means than a 6 a.m.-to-10 p.m. ban by which to deny minors access to \u201cindecent\u201d material on cable television, it appears that a strong case may be made that applying the FCC\u2019s indecency restrictions to cable television would violate the First Amendment. This is because, as the Supreme Court wrote when it struck down the ban on \u201cindecent\u201d material on the Internet, \u201cthe Government may not \u2018reduc[e] the adult population . . . to . . . only what is fit for children.\u2019\u201d In addition, the Court, in the 2000 case mentioned above, struck down a speech restriction on cable television, in part because \u201cfor two-thirds of the day no household in those service areas could receive the programming, whether or not the household or the viewer wanted to do so.\u201d",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33170",
          "sha1": "75526ecd07eec5f54369de55c69506b31e64878e",
          "filename": "files/20080317_RL33170_75526ecd07eec5f54369de55c69506b31e64878e.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33170",
          "sha1": "ede5d164423ef528d4456555aa946cf43cd143ec",
          "filename": "files/20080317_RL33170_ede5d164423ef528d4456555aa946cf43cd143ec.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819289/",
      "id": "RL33170_2007Dec18",
      "date": "2007-12-18",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Constitutionality of Applying the FCC\u2019s Indecency Restriction to Cable Television",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20071218_RL33170_c9b60791b21f80e006a797c90ac55bbca1ebf883.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20071218_RL33170_c9b60791b21f80e006a797c90ac55bbca1ebf883.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8234/",
      "id": "RL33170 2005-12-01",
      "date": "2005-12-01",
      "retrieved": "2006-02-24T12:47:45",
      "title": "Constitutionality of Applying the FCC's Indecency Restriction to Cable Television",
      "summary": "Various federal officials have spoken in favor of extending the Federal Communication Commission\u2019s indecency restriction, which currently applies to broadcast television and radio, to cable and satellite television. This report examines whether such an extension would violate the First Amendment\u2019s guarantee of freedom of speech.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20051201_RL33170_e7da2b9ea09d70183e4c5b4c39386f7d86d05b71.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20051201_RL33170_e7da2b9ea09d70183e4c5b4c39386f7d86d05b71.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Telecommunication",
          "name": "Telecommunication"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Supreme Court decisions",
          "name": "Supreme Court decisions"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Freedom of speech",
          "name": "Freedom of speech"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Television broadcasting - Government regulation",
          "name": "Television broadcasting - Government regulation"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Law",
          "name": "Law"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Civil liberties",
          "name": "Civil liberties"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}