Stevens: Apply Indecency Rules to Cable

At the NAB State Leadership Conference Tues., Stevens pushed both over-the-air broadcasters and cable to clean up their act. “No one wants censorship, but we want your cooperation,” Stevens said. Meanwhile, NCTA said it would fight any effort to apply broadcast regulations to cable and noted that the Supreme Court has ruled in its favor in the past.

But Stevens told reporters after his speech the high court would likely have to review this issue again. Stevens told NAB he was concerned about the programming running on both cable and broadcast TV and cited examples of indecent programming, including the canceled NBC series Father of the Pride, which he said ran during the “family hour” and included jokes about masturbation and sex toys. “But cable is often worse,” he said, adding that he’s had to turn off cable programming because of vulgarity. “The problem is, most viewers don’t differentiate between over- the-air broadcasting and cable,” Stevens told the NAB: “I think we have the same power to deal with cable as we do with over-the-air. They must live up to the same standards of decency that apply to you.” Asked by reporters after his speech if his views applied to HBO and other premium pay TV channels, Stevens said: “As far as I'm concerned, they do.” Stevens intimated that even satellite radio could be regulated for indecency.

Barton told reporters he believed there were inconsistencies in regulation between over-the-air broadcast and cable that should be rectified. “If we can work out the constitutional question, I'd support it,” Barton said of Steven’s proposal to apply the regulations to cable.

Stevens defended some proposals that were opposed by NAB, including a “3 strikes” rule that would require license holders to face revocation hearings after 3 indecency findings. He said there were plenty of safeguards in the proposal to limit what constitutes a strike, including situations where the content originated from the network and where a rogue performer utters several indecent remarks in a brief time. “It looks like a lawyer employment” provision, he said, “but it’s really just a shot across the bow.” Stevens said the provision won’t be a problem for “responsible broadcasters.” He also said he supports applying fines to performers. “We have to stop loading down the FCC with minutiae,” Stevens said. Allen said he also supported indecency legislation, particularly the provision to apply fines to performers.

In a news release, the NCTA emphasized that it provides the technological means for parents to block unwanted cable programming, and has run more than 3 million public service announcements on such blocking technology as part of its “Cable Puts You In Control” campaign. NCTA also said it would fight any effort to extend indecency regulations to cable. “As the U.S. Supreme Court has found, the subscription nature of cable service, and the ability of cable customers to block unwanted programming through the use of tools offered by local cable systems, strongly differentiate cable from broadcasting, which is distributed free and unfiltered over the air,” NCTA said.

The House last month overwhelmingly passed legislation that would raise FCC indecency fines on broadcasters from $32,500 per incident to a maximum of $500,000 per incident. The bill (HR-310) would also establish the “3 strikes” provision and allow the FCC to levy fines up to $500,000 on individual performers -- though an amendment helped carve out several exceptions, such as clearing an artist of liability if the performance was prerecorded. The same legislation passed last year, but stalled in the Senate, as the fines on artists and the “3 strikes” rule caused some concern among senators. Sen. Brownback (R-Kan.), who led the indecency legislation push in the Senate last year, has introduced much simpler legislation (S-193) that only raises fines on license holders to $325,000 and doesn’t address 3 strikes, fines on artists or other controversial provisions. A Senate source said Senate Majority Leader Frist (R-Tenn.) has cleared S-193 for floor consideration, even though it hasn’t passed Committee. Under the circumstances, the Senate couldn’t consider the bill by unanimous consent, and it would be subject to full debate, the Senate source said. A spokeswoman for Frist told us it’s unlikely the Senate would consider the bill this week since it would be preoccupied with bankruptcy legislation.