🚀 go-pugleaf

hougen@vision.csl.uiuc.edu (Darrell Roy Hougen) writes:

[...]
>The local city council certainly has no reason to promote competition.
>Afterall, they collect a hefty franchising fee from the cable company,
>allowing them "enhance their revenue".
[...]

There is more than that. A "devil's bargain" is often struck between
the owners of a new mass medium and the government. The owners get
monopoly profits and the government gets a "friendly" medium 
(e.g. quiet and "responsible", access for incumbents, etc.).

I'm enclosing more info on this.

- Carl

From alt.censorship Wed Feb 26 16:00:05 1992
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,alt.censorship
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Censorship in exchange for monopoly (book review)
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.215332.18232@m.cs.uiuc.edu>

I've almost finished reading the book _Freedom, Technology, and the
First Amendment_ by Jonathan W. Emord (1991). I recommend the book to
anyone interested in freedom and technology issues.

The premise of the book is that with *every* mass medium the
authorities and the media owners are tempted to strike a devil's
bargain: In exchange for content control (censorship) by the medium
owners the government imposes market controls (monopoly). The
government gets a quiet medium; the media owners get high profits
because potential competitors are frozen out of the market.

The book starts with the first mass medium, the newspaper. It details
how in England, 500 years ago, newspapers were brought to heal with
royal contracts. In the United States, in reaction against English
laws, newspapers are free (both of content control and market control)
but other media are not.

The next mass medium discussed is radio. In the early days of radio,
anyone could get a license. Interference problems were handled via
negotiations and in, at least once case, the courts. (The court
recognized that a station with a history of broadcasting on a
frequency had common law property rights to that frequency.)

Contrary to the official line, the problem for broadcasters was
competition, not interference. Using interference as a pretext, the
big broadcasters got Congress create the laws that lead to the FCC.
With the FCC and its predecessor, the number of broadcasters has been
severally restricted. In exchange, Congress passed regulations that
guaranteed easy access to the airwaves by incumbents. (These
regulations include the equal time rules, the so-called fairness
doctrine, the personal attack rule, and rules saying that political
advertising must be charged the lowest rate.) (Some of these
regulations were removed by Reagan; some remain.)

The book ends with a discussion of cable TV. Again we see government
(now local government) offering monopolies in exchange for incumbent
access and content controls.

What is the alternative to, for example, FCC regulation? The author
supports property rights. (Why should real estate be "ownable" while
parts of the airwaves are not?) For cable, he says that just as it is
unconstitutional for a local government to give one newspaper a
monopoly on sidewalk newspaper stands, it should be unconstitutional
for the government to give one cable company a monopoly on offering
cable service.

The only argument in the book of which I'm still not certain is one of
the author's last. He said that the government will often claim that
it needs to regulate the media in order to ensure diversity. In doing
this, the government says that it is supporting the principle of the
First Amendment. Examples, include laws which restrict the number of
media outlets someone may own and requirements that cable systems
provide community access channels. He says that the First Amendment
does not say that the government should require diversity, rather the
First Amendment says that the government can not interfere.

Random Closing thoughts:

This is a great book. It has probably a thousand references. I am now
on the look out for these devil's bargains. The bargains can be fought
two ways: 1) fight against *government-sanctioned* media monopolies 2)
fight against *government-suggested/imposed* content restrictions.

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Student Censorship At Case Western
Message-ID: <kadie.672357902@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager))
Nntp-Posting-Host: herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
References: <1991Apr22.182122.20598@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 91 22:05:02 GMT
Lines: 23

In <1991Apr22.182122.20598@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> cjs@po.CWRU.Edu (Christopher J. Seline) writes:

>The discussion of censorship at CWRU is being covered in the
>comp-academic-freedom-talk@eff.org  (aka caf-talk.eff.org).

PLEASE DON'T SEND ADD REQUESTS TO THIS ADDRESS!

For information on joining the Computers and Academic Freedom
send email to listserv@eff.org. Include these lines:
   longindex
   help

To join, send the line
   add comp-academic-freedom-batch
or
   add comp-academic-freedom-talk

(The first will get you dozen's of little notes per day. The second will
get you one big note a day).

- Carl
--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Xref: m.cs.uiuc.edu talk.politics.mideast:8759 talk.politics.misc:8772 misc.headlines:4012 talk.politics.soviet:2562 alt.activism:6393 alt.conspiracy:1935 alt.censorship:1309
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!vela!umich!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!world!eff!kadie
From: kadie@eff.org (Carl Kadie)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,talk.politics.soviet,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: USENET CENSORSHIP AT CUNY
Message-ID: <1991May11.191642.9498@eff.org>
Date: 11 May 91 19:16:42 GMT
References: <1991May9.193513.15685@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 40

oleg@watson.ibm.com writes:
[...]
>If DLV was paying the USENET phone bills himself, and did not put his
>from: and organization: as those of CUNY, I would have to agree with you.
>However, since his views and statements can be considered by many damaging
>to the school he is a member of, CUNY has a right to withdraw posting
>abilities from him.
[...]

The academic freedom of students (as expressed by the 'Joint Statement
on Rights and Freedoms of Students.') says:

  Academic institutions exist for the transmission of knowledge, the
pursuit of truth, the development of students, and the general
well-being of society. Free inquiry and free expression are
indispensable to the attainment of these goals its members of the
academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the
capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for truth.
[...]
  1. Students and student organizations should be free to examine and
discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions
publicly and privately. They should always be free to support causes
by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential
operation of the institution. At the same time, it should be made
clear to the academic and the larger community that in their public
expressions or demonstrations students or student organizations speak
only for themselves. 
[...]
[And in the context of inviting a speaker ...]

The institutional control of campus facilities should not be used as a
device of censorship.

- Carl



-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@eff.org or kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- But I speak for myself.

Newsgroups: alt.censorship
Path: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
From: kadie@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Campus Speech Restrictions
Message-ID: <1991Jun14.194401.12065@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1991 19:44:01 GMT

Did anyone see the PBS panel discussion on campus speech restrictions.
I missed all but the last few minutes, and would be grateful for your
impressions.

I think the show was taped at Stanford. At the very end the moderator
thanked Dr. Kennedy, the president of Stanford. I thought this was
ironic since Dr. Kennedy was the one who, two years ago, thought
banning rec.humor.funny was a good idea. And who, just resently fired
Stuart Reges, a Stanford instructor, after Drug Czar Martinez
complained about a letter from Reges.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign