ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, June 29, 1996 TAG: 9607010060
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A1 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Associated Press
note: above
Citing free speech, the Supreme Court struck down key portions of a federal law aimed at restricting children's exposure to indecent programs on some cable TV channels.
But Friday's splintered and complex decision left unresolved many questions. A huge one: Will the ruling help or hurt government efforts to keep smut off the Internet?
The court upheld one provision of the challenged law, Congress' first effort to clean up cable television programming. That provision lets cable operators refuse to carry any programs they reasonably believe are indecent on channels they lease to others.
But the justices said the government cannot force cable operators to segregate all programs deemed indecent and place them on a single, leased channel. Nor can the government let cable operators opt out of carrying public-access channels that feature programs some might find indecent, the court said.
The cable decision was hailed by Michael Greenberger, a lawyer representing public-access television programmers and producers, as ``a tremendous victory for First Amendment forces.''
``The common-sense message that comes through is only when there is evidence children are being harmed will government be given more leeway to impose censorship,'' Greenberger said.
Another free-speech advocate, Andy Schwartzman of Washington-based Media Access Project, was less enthusiastic.
``The Supreme Court has left the public with more, not less, doubt about how the First Amendment applies to cable TV,'' he said. ``The court's wide divisions are disappointing.''
The decision produced six separate opinions and three distinct votes with shifting majorities.
The court split 7-2 in upholding the law's first provision. The justices voted 6-3 to strike down the leased-channels provision and 5-4 to strike down the public-access channels provision.
The law defines indecent programs as those that depict or describe ``sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner.''
Unlike obscene material, indecent material is protected by the Constitution's free-speech guarantees. Opponents argued that programs on AIDS, abortion and child birth could be banned or blocked as indecent.
The provisions, added to the cable legislation by Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., just before its passage, do not apply to commercial cable channels such as MTV and HBO.
Steve Phillips, a senior spokesman for Helms, praised that part of the ruling he said would help ``protect children from sleazy programs.''
As for the rest of the decision, Phillips said, ``We will evaluate whether there are any alternative legislative approaches.''
The court's main opinion, written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, was worded cautiously. He cited ``a new and changing environment'' and the need for ``flexibility necessary to allow government to respond to very serious practical problems without sacrificing the free exchange of ideas the First Amendment is designed to protect.''
His words are sure to be studied closely by those enmeshed in a dispute over the Telecommunications Act of 1996, signed into law by President Clinton in February.
That law would make it harder to send indecent material over the Internet if there's a possibility it would be seen by children.
In blocking enforcement of that law earlier this month, a Philadelphia-based federal appeals court cited free-speech violations.
Sen. James Exon, D-Neb., released a letter Friday in which Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick assured him the administration will appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court by Tuesday.
In both the cable and Internet conflicts, defenders of free and diverse speech have been pitted against children's advocates concerned about what minors can see.
Friday's decision reiterated the court's holding that the government's broad leeway to regulate over-the-air television and radio broadcasters does not apply to cable operations.
For free-speech purposes, the court treats cable channels more like newspapers than broadcast stations.
In all, opinions were authored by Breyer, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens and Thomas.
The 1992 cable TV law was challenged by two coalitions of cable programmers, the Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium and the Alliance for Community Media.
LENGTH: Medium: 88 linesby CNB