Appendix B Understanding Mass and Mediated Communication^539over media content. But its attempts at regulation are often struck down by
the courts as unconstitutional (such as bans on pornography and heavy regu-
lation of political campaign speech). The regulations that U.S. courts allow
mostly involve rules about technical issues, such as broadcast signals or own-
ership of stations and copyright laws. In effect, the U.S. government actually
has little direct influence on media content compared to the governments of
other countries.
Do all of the U.S. media benefit from this protection? The courts have
generally held that creative expression is protected speech, whether in print, on
TV, in movies, or on the Internet. However, the courts have also upheld some
content regulations for some kinds of media, particularly broadcasting, as we’ll
see in the next section.Electronic Media Regulation
There is an important legal difference between broadcast signals and cable or
satellite channels. Broadcasting refers to signals carried over the airwaves from
a station transmitter to a receiver. For radio, these are the AM/FM stations you
might listen to in your car. For television, they are the major networks (ABC,
CBS, NBC, FOX, and The CW) and independent local stations. Most cable and
satellite companies now carry these signals to you, or you stream their programs
over the Internet, so the broadcast TV channels today look just like every other
channel on TV or like any show you might watch online.
However, because broadcasting frequencies are limited and because the
airwaves themselves are essentially a public resource, the government—
through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—can regulate
which private companies may broadcast over them. In order to keep their
broadcasting licenses, broadcasters must agree to serve the public interest.
Cable and satellite providers, on the other hand, have not been subject to the
same kinds of regulations.
Although the First Amendment right to free speech and press does apply to
broadcasters, broadcast television networks and radio stations are subject to some
speech restrictions. The courts have held that the government can impose restric-
tions that serve a “compelling government interest” (that is, the government has
a really good reason for doing it, such as to protect children), and only when the
regulation is the “least restrictive” way to serve that interest (that is, the govern-
ment cannot ban all adult TV content just to be able to protect kids from
seeing it) (Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 1991).
Recall the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident discussed
earlier. CBS stations were originally fined because the FCC
said that the dance number violated a ban on broadcast
indecency. Indecency legally means “patently offensive...
sexual or excretory activities or organs” (Federal Com-
munications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 1978),
but in practice it means talking about or showing sexual
or other bodily functions in a very lewd or vulgar way.
This is a very subjective evaluation, of course, which is
why broadcasters frequently end up fighting over their
fines in court.Is free speech an absolute
right? Do you think the gov-
ernment should be able to
curtail some forms of speech?
In what contexts do you
think other authorities—
parents, religious organiza-
tions, schools, libraries—
should be able to censor
information, if at all?AND YOU?
WHEN SATURDAY
NIGHT LIVE premiered on
broadcast network NBC in
1975, the original cast of
“Not Ready for Prime Time
Players” was relegated to a
late-night airtime to allow for
its often boundary-pushing
sketch comedy. Photofest1 19_OHA_45766_App_B_530_556.indd 539 9 OHA 45766 _AppB 530 _ 556 .indd 539 13/10/14 5:39 PM 13 / 10 / 14 5 : 39 PM