Cable Television and Censorship
Cable television, which emerged in the late 1940s to enhance TV reception, evolved significantly by the 1970s, introducing a wide range of programming options including distant stations, advertiser-supported networks, and local content. This diversity has sparked ongoing debates about censorship, as some broadcasters advocate for free expression while others call for restrictions on content deemed obscene or indecent. In the U.S., court rulings have generally upheld First Amendment rights, allowing for more expansive programming despite attempts at censorship, such as local ordinances and statutes that have been deemed unconstitutional. Notably, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 aimed to balance content diversity with community standards, requiring certain public access channels and the availability of "lockboxes" for parents to control what their children watch.
However, the consolidation of media ownership in the 1990s raised concerns about the diminishing variety of viewpoints, leading critics to argue that this concentration equates to a form of hidden censorship. In Canada, the approach to cable television censorship differs, as the government plays a more active role in regulating content to safeguard cultural values from foreign influences. This disparity in regulatory philosophy reflects broader societal values regarding freedom of speech and media responsibility, making the discussion about cable television and censorship a complex interplay of legal, cultural, and commercial interests.
On this Page
Cable Television and Censorship
Definition: Nonbroadcast U.S. telecommunications medium
Significance: U.S. courts have viewed cable television differently from broadcast television in decisions involving censorship attempts
Cable television in the United States, created during the late 1940s to improve reception, expanded its services by the mid-1970s to include distant television stations, advertiser-supported networks, pay-cable, and local community offerings. With its diverse programming, cable television created tensions between broadcasters advocating free expression and those demanding censorship of programs deemed obscene or indecent. Over the years, broadcasters have usually won court battles involving obscenity charges and threats of censorship on grounds that First Amendment rights to free speech were violated. For example, during the 1980s the courts found a restrictive Miami cable ordinance and three Utah cable statutes in violation of the First Amendment; likewise a Puerto Rican case involving the Playboy channel in the 1990s. The courts have viewed the cable industry differently from broadcast television because cable involves voluntary agreements between subscribers and service providers, based on monthly payments that may be canceled by subscribers if so desired.
In spite of court decisions favoring free expression, Congress and governmental agencies have continued to formulate policies restricting obscenity and indecency on cable systems. For example, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 encouraged local authorities to stipulate in contracts with cable franchisers that they not broadcast indecent or obscene materials. The same act required a percentage of channels on each system to be set aside as public service access channels to encourage program diversity for different ethnicities and ideological viewpoints. By encouraging unconventional programming, the act set in motion possible obscenity problems and raised the specter of censorship.
The 1984 law also required cable operators to make available to customers, on request, “lockboxes” to prevent children from viewing objectionable programs. Subscribers use these to activate traps behind their television sets to block out objectionable programs. The courts have approved such devices, reasoning that they provide a practical way of preventing indecent language or sexually explicit acts from entering the objecting homes while allowing others access to such programming.
The 1980s promise of cultural diversity on cable systems turned empty in the 1990s with the megamergers of telecommunication empires which blended audio, video, computers, and data services into an almost monolithic structure. Also, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allowed giant corporations to own more media outlets. Critics charged that by the mid-1990s only twenty corporations owned most U.S. media outlets, thereby setting the news agenda to influence public opinion on critical issues. For example, critics cited the proposed 1993 health care plan in which the controlled media chose to focus on one favored plan and ignored others, causing the public to be ignorant of alternatives. Critics contended that the reduction of news outlet owners and the elimination of diverse viewpoints and programming amounts to hidden censorship.
Like the United States, Canada is densely cabled and has found itself facing similar issues related to censorship. Unlike the United States, Canada has relied more on the government to regulate content to protect its cultural values against such international cable encroachments as Hollywood violence, sex, and foul language. Some Canadians resent American courts for making “freedom of speech” paramount in rendering judgments on decency matters in programming; ironically, they consider the American courts to have an unrealistic “absolutist position.”
Bibliography
Bustillos, Maria. "Curses! The Birth of the Bleep and Modern American Censorship." Verge. Vox Media, 27 Aug. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.
Fickers, Andreas, and Catherine Johnson. Transnational Television History: A Comparative Approach. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.
Mullen, Megan. Television in the Multichannel Age: A Brief History of Cable and Satellite Television. Malden: Blackwell, 2008. Print.
Parsons, Patrick. Blue Skies: A History of Cable Television. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 2008. Print.