Chapter 9 Obscenity and Indecency
True/False Questions
1) Nudity is synonymous with obscenity.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Nudity and obscenity are not synonymous. While nudity can be a component of material deemed obscene in certain contexts, mere nudity alone does not automatically render material obscene. Obscenity is determined based on various factors, including community standards, prurient interest, and lack of literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, as established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973).
2) A person who "panders" may be convicted for commercial exploitation of sexual material even though the materials are not obscene.
Answer: True
Rationale:
Pandering involves the commercial exploitation of sexual materials, often by promoting or distributing them for profit. Even if the materials themselves are not found to be legally obscene, individuals engaging in pandering may still be subject to criminal prosecution for facilitating the distribution of such materials for commercial gain, particularly if they are found to be exploiting prurient interests or engaging in harmful practices.
3) Adult-oriented pay-cable services such as the Playboy Channel are prohibited from operating between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Adult-oriented pay-cable services, such as the Playboy Channel, are typically not subject to time-based restrictions like broadcast television. Unlike over-the-air broadcasts, which are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and subject to indecency and profanity standards during certain hours, subscription-based cable channels have more flexibility in their programming content and scheduling, including adult-oriented material.
4) In Freedman v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court said that theater owners and film distributors may be compelled to prove that films are not obscene.
Answer: False
Rationale:
In Freedman v. Maryland (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prior restraints on the exhibition of films, such as requiring theater owners and film distributors to obtain approval or licenses before showing films, must adhere to specific procedural safeguards to prevent censorship. However, the Court did not establish a requirement for theater owners and film distributors to prove the non-obscenity of films; rather, it emphasized the importance of prompt judicial review and the burden of proof on the government to justify prior restraints.
5) The governmental interest in protecting minors justifies laws which prohibit the sale of sexually-oriented magazines to minors, even when those magazines may be legally sold to adults.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the government has a compelling interest in protecting minors from exposure to sexually explicit material, even if such material may be legally available to adults. Laws restricting the sale or distribution of sexually-oriented materials to minors are justified by the government's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors and promoting parental authority over their upbringing.
6) A reporter investigating child pornography on the Internet has a First Amendment right to download images of children engaged in sexual acts.
Answer: False
Rationale:
While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and press, including the rights of journalists to investigate and report on matters of public concern, it does not provide blanket protection for downloading or possessing illegal or harmful materials, such as child pornography. Engaging in such activities could constitute criminal offenses under federal and state laws related to child exploitation and obscenity.
7) In Reno v. ACLU and Sable Communications v. FCC, the U.S. Supreme Court said that users of the Internet and dial-it telephone services are unlikely to accidentally confront indecent sexual expression.
Answer: True
Rationale:
In Reno v. ACLU (1997) and Sable Communications v. FCC (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that users of the Internet and dial-it telephone services have greater control over their exposure to indecent sexual expression compared to traditional broadcast media. Unlike broadcast television and radio, which are pervasive and accessible to all, users must actively seek out or subscribe to specific online content or services, reducing the likelihood of accidental exposure to indecent material.
8) In Reno v. ACLU, the U.S. Supreme Court found Congress' definition of Internet indecency was unconstitutionally vague.
Answer: True
Rationale:
In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that aimed to regulate indecent and obscene material on the Internet. The Court found that the CDA's definition of indecency was overly broad and vague, potentially chilling protected speech and failing to provide adequate guidance to Internet users and content providers about what constituted prohibited material.
9) The Miller test is not applied to determine the constitutional status of sexually explicit materials involving children.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The Miller test, established by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973), is used to determine the constitutional status of sexually explicit materials involving adults. However, when dealing with sexually explicit materials involving children, such as child pornography, different legal standards apply. Child pornography is subject to strict scrutiny and is generally not afforded any First Amendment protection due to the inherent harm and exploitation involved.
10) The Stanley v. Georgia ruling does not protect the private possession of materials depicting children engaged in sexual activities.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (1969) established that the private possession of obscene material in the privacy of one's home is protected under the First Amendment, even though the distribution or sale of such material may be prohibited. However, this protection does not extend to materials depicting children engaged in sexual activities, as possession of child pornography is illegal under federal and state laws aimed at preventing child exploitation and abuse.
11) A community may use its zoning authority to control the location of sexually-oriented businesses.
Answer: True
Rationale:
Zoning regulations are commonly used by communities to control the location of various types of businesses, including sexually-oriented establishments such as adult bookstores, strip clubs, or adult theaters. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of zoning ordinances aimed at regulating the location of sexually-oriented businesses, provided that such regulations are content-neutral and serve a legitimate governmental interest, such as preserving community aesthetics or preventing negative secondary effects associated with such businesses.
12) The "social value" prong of the Miller test is an effort by the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve freedom for serious works depicting sexuality while allowing states to criminalize the distribution of sexual materials that lack serious value.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The Miller test, established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. California (1973), includes a prong focusing on whether the material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This prong serves as a mechanism for distinguishing between protected expression, such as serious works of art or literature that may contain sexual content, and unprotected obscenity, which is devoid of any redeeming social value. The inclusion of this prong reflects the Court's intent to strike a balance between protecting free speech and allowing states to regulate obscenity.
13) The U.S. Supreme Court's Pacifica Foundation case is precedent for local laws prohibiting the sale or rental to adults of indecent DVDs.
Answer: False
Rationale:
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) upheld the FCC's authority to regulate indecent broadcasting on the public airwaves, particularly during times when children are likely to be in the audience. However, this case specifically addressed broadcast media and the unique characteristics of radio and television broadcasts, rather than the sale or rental of DVDs. Local laws prohibiting the sale or rental of indecent DVDs to adults would be subject to different legal considerations, including First Amendment scrutiny and principles of freedom of expression and access to information.
14) The V-Chip requirement has reduced the FCC's interest in enforcing indecency rules for television.
Answer: False
Rationale:
The V-Chip requirement, which allows viewers to block programming based on content ratings, was implemented as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to provide parents with tools to control their children's exposure to objectionable television content. However, the existence of the V-Chip has not diminished the FCC's interest in enforcing indecency rules for television. The FCC continues to regulate and enforce broadcast indecency standards to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and protect viewers, particularly children, from exposure to indecent or profane material during certain hours.
15) The film "Spank Me Lightly" is found to be obscene by a jury in Fair Hope, Alabama. This means that the sequel, "Spank Me a Little Harder" is also presumptively obscene and all copies of the sequel may be seized by Fair Hope police officials without an obscenity prosecution aimed at the sequel.
Answer: False
Rationale:
Each work must be evaluated independently to determine its obscenity under the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court, such as the Miller test. The finding of obscenity for one work does not automatically render subsequent works by the same creator or in the same series presumptively obscene. Each work must be assessed based on its own content and context. Additionally, the seizure of materials deemed obscene typically requires a judicial determination following an obscenity prosecution or legal proceedings.
16) A web site with information about preventing breast cancer, including photographs showing how a breast self-examination should be conducted, is subject to the FCC's indecency rules.
Answer: False
Rationale:
The FCC's indecency rules primarily apply to broadcast media, such as television and radio broadcasts, over which the FCC has regulatory authority. Websites and other online content typically fall outside the scope of FCC indecency regulations, as they are considered forms of non-broadcast media and are subject to different regulatory frameworks, such as those established by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or specific laws governing online content.
17) Members of a church may picket on the public sidewalk adjacent to an adult video store as long as they do not trespass or block the entrances. This picketing is legal even if the church members seek to deter potential customers from entering the store.
Answer: True
Rationale:
Picketing on a public sidewalk adjacent to an adult video store is generally considered protected speech under the First Amendment, as long as it does not violate other laws or ordinances, such as those prohibiting trespassing or obstructing public thoroughfares. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the rights of individuals and groups to engage in peaceful picketing and demonstrations in public spaces, even if the purpose is to express disapproval or persuade others to refrain from certain activities, such as patronizing an adult video store.
18) The FCC regards the words fuck and shit to be presumptively indecent and profane when uttered in entertainment programming broadcast at 9 p.m. However, the FCC does not regard the words pissed and crap to be presumptively indecent and profane when uttered in entertainment programming airing at 9 p.m.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The FCC has established guidelines regarding the broadcast of indecent and profane language on television and radio during certain hours when children are likely to be in the audience. Words such as "fuck" and "shit" are generally considered presumptively indecent and profane and may be subject to FCC enforcement actions if broadcast during times when children are likely to be watching or listening, regardless of the context. However, words such as "pissed" and "crap" may not be subject to the same presumption of indecency and profanity, depending on the context in which they are used and prevailing community standards.
19) The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Ashcroft v. ACLU II upheld COPA and treated filters as an inadequate means of controlling children's access to indecent material on the Internet.
Answer: False
Rationale:
In Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), finding that it violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The Court did not uphold COPA; rather, it held that COPA's use of community standards to identify harmful material was overly broad and not the least restrictive means of achieving the government's interest in protecting minors from harmful online content. The Court did not specifically address the adequacy of filters as a means of controlling children's access to indecent material on the Internet.
20) According to the U.S. Supreme Court, public libraries receiving federal funds may be required to install filters on computers connected to the Internet.
Answer: True
Rationale:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. American Library Association (2003), held that public libraries receiving federal funds may be required to install internet filtering software on computers connected to the internet, as a condition of receiving such funds. The Court ruled that such filtering requirements do not necessarily violate the First Amendment, as they represent a reasonable exercise of the government's authority to allocate funds and regulate the use of public resources, particularly in the interest of protecting minors from harmful or inappropriate online content.
Multiple Choice Questions
1) After wrestling with the problem of obscenity for many years, Justice Brennan wrote in his dissenting opinion in Paris Adult Theatre that
A) all definitions of obscenity are vague.
B) the government should severely restrict all sexual content.
C) the government should restrict only sexual content appealing to "deviates."
D) the government should focus on media violence, not portrayals of sexuality.
E) None of the above.
Answer: A
Rationale:
Justice Brennan's dissenting opinion in Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (1973) argued that all definitions of obscenity are inherently vague and subjective, making it difficult to apply consistent standards in obscenity cases. He contended that the lack of clear definitions rendered obscenity laws susceptible to abuse and censorship, thus advocating for a more narrow interpretation of what constitutes unprotected speech.
2) The 1957 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first held that obscenity was unprotected expression.
A) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
B) Roth v. United States
C) Miller v. California
D) Regina v. Hicklin
E) None of the above
Answer: B
Rationale:
In Roth v. United States (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court established the precedent that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. This case marked the first time the Court explicitly recognized obscenity as a category of speech outside the realm of constitutional protection, providing a legal framework for obscenity prosecutions.
3) Prior restraints are
A) prohibited in obscenity cases.
B) permitted in the case of sexually oriented films if the procedures specified in Freedman v. Maryland are followed.
C) allowed if police officials believe materials are probably obscene.
D) B and C
E) None of the above
Answer: B
Rationale:
Prior restraints, which involve government actions to prevent speech before it occurs, are generally disfavored under the First Amendment. However, in the case of obscenity, the U.S. Supreme Court in Freedman v. Maryland (1965) established specific procedural safeguards that must be met for prior restraints to be constitutionally permissible in the context of regulating the exhibition of sexually oriented films. These safeguards include prompt judicial review, the burden of proof on the government, and strict time limitations.
4) In an obscenity prosecution against the current issue of Playboy, the jury
A) would be able to focus on the nudity and disregard the articles, essays, and interviews.
B) would be required to address the literary and artistic merit of the magazine as a whole.
C) would be allowed to apply the standards of the least tolerant people in the community.
D) A and C
E) None of the above.
Answer: B
Rationale:
In an obscenity prosecution against a publication like Playboy, the jury would be required to consider the magazine as a whole, including both its pictorial and textual content, when determining whether it meets the legal definition of obscenity. This requirement stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Miller v. California (1973), which established a three-pronged test for determining obscenity, one element of which is whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
5) After a particularly contentious and close NASCAR race, the winning driver exults in a cable television interview that his rival drivers "can all kiss my ass." This interview is cablecast live at 7 p.m. This cablecast is
A) obscene.
B) indecent.
C) profane.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
Answer: E
Rationale:
The statement made by the winning driver, while vulgar, does not meet the legal definitions of obscenity, indecency, or profanity. Obscenity refers to materials that appeal to prurient interests and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Indecency typically involves offensive sexual or excretory content that is patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards. Profanity generally refers to blasphemous or vulgar language. The statement made by the winning driver may be considered crude or offensive to some viewers, but it does not fall within the legal definitions of obscenity, indecency, or profanity.
6) The case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment allows the government to seize a defendant's entire entertainment business, including constitutionally protected books and films, after a racketeering conviction.
A) Alexander v. United States
B) Playboy Entertainment v. United States
C) Miller v. California
D) Jacobson v. United States
E) None of the above
Answer: A
Rationale:
In Alexander v. United States (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the government could seize a defendant's entire entertainment business, including constitutionally protected materials, as part of a forfeiture action following a racketeering conviction. The Court reasoned that such seizures were permissible under the First Amendment as long as they were not based solely on the expressive content of the materials, but rather on their instrumentalities of crime or proceeds from criminal activity.
7) A video store that rents or sells sexually-explicit DVDs only to willing adults
A) has a First Amendment right to distribute even obscene materials.
B) may be prosecuted under the doctrine of Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton if the DVDs are obscene.
C) would be required to prove that its DVDs are not obscene before it could receive a business license.
D) B and C
E) None of the above
Answer: B
Rationale:
According to the doctrine established in Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton (1973), the distribution of obscene materials, even to consenting adults, may be subject to prosecution and regulation by the government. Therefore, a video store that rents or sells sexually-explicit DVDs only to willing adults may still be prosecuted if the DVDs are found to be obscene under the legal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
8) The case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress could ban obscene sexual messages provided by commercial telephone services, but could not ban indecent telephone services.
A) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
B) New York v. Ferber
C) Sable Communications v. FCC
D) Reno v. ACLU
E) None of the above.
Answer: C
Rationale:
In Sable Communications v. FCC (1989), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress could prohibit the transmission of obscene sexual messages provided by commercial telephone services under the First Amendment. However, the Court held that Congress could not ban indecent telephone services because such a ban would constitute an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.
9) The V-Chip
A) is required on computers.
B) eliminated the need for indecency rules for television.
C) works only on broadcast programming, not cable or satellite programming.
D) has been found to be unconstitutional.
E) None of the above.
Answer: E
Rationale:
The V-Chip is a device installed in television receivers that allows parents to block programming based on content ratings. It is not required on computers and does not eliminate the need for indecency rules for television. Additionally, it can work on both broadcast and cable/satellite programming, depending on the capabilities of the television receiver and the content provider's adherence to content rating standards.
10) Parents who are concerned about their children's access to sexually-explicit cable television programs may
A) purchase a V-chip equipped television receiver and block reception of all programs rated TV-MA.
B) ask their cable company to block their home from receiving channels featuring sexually-explicit material.
C) ask their cable company for a lockbox.
D) All of the above.
E) None of the above.
Answer: D
Rationale:
Parents who are concerned about their children's access to sexually explicit cable television programs have several options available to them. They can purchase a V-chip equipped television receiver and use it to block reception of all programs rated TV-MA. Additionally, they can contact their cable company and request to block their home from receiving channels featuring sexually explicit material. Another option is to ask their cable company for a lockbox, which can provide additional control over which channels are accessible. Therefore, all of the options listed in the question are valid methods for parents to address their concerns about their children's exposure to sexually explicit content on cable television.
Essay Questions
1) Explain why the FCC is allowed to impose sanctions on indecent broadcasts after such programs are broadcast, but the agency is not allowed to review material prior to its broadcast.
Answer: Section 326 of the Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast programming. This has been interpreted by courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, as prohibiting prior review of broadcast programs. However, the Communications Act allows the FCC to punish broadcasters, either through fines or revocation of a license, if broadcasters air unprotected programs.
The provisions of the Communication Act track longstanding First Amendment doctrine. The Blackstonian view of press freedom provided that there could be no prior restraint of the press, but post-publication punishments were permissible. The contemporary Supreme Court largely adheres to the Blackstonian view; post-publication penalties are preferable to prior restraints. Because of our society's historic animosity toward content-based review of content prior to its dissemination, the Court prefers that legal sanctions be imposed after material is published.
Indecency is unprotected expression if broadcast during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. As stated in the Pacifica Foundation case, material that is indecent is not as constitutionally significant as political expression. The Court regarded George Carlin's 7 Dirty Words Monologue as having minimal social value. Thus, the Court in Pacifica believed that indecency actions are unlikely to deter broadcasting of "valuable" expression.
2) Discuss the rationale for the FCC's recent F-word ruling and the problems this ruling creates for broadcasters.
Answer: In its Bono ruling, the FCC announced that "vulgar and coarse language" was profane when broadcast in live entertainment programming airing during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. This case arose when U-2's Bono exclaimed "This is really, really fucking brilliant" during a live awards program. The FCC's enforcement bureau found that in this context, the word fucking did not describe sexual activities. Moreover, drawing upon FCC guidelines, the bureau concluded that fleeting and isolated remarks did not warrant FCC sanctions.
In overturning the enforcement bureau's decision, the FCC announced that its precedents allowing isolated or fleeting use of the F-word in similar contexts were no longer good law. Any use of the F-word inherently has a sexual connotation, the FCC said. Furthermore, use of the F-word was patently offensive because it is "one of the most vulgar, graphic, and explicit depictions of sexual activity in the English language." The FCC described Bono's use of the F-word as gratuitous, and indicated that political, scientific, or other uses of the F-word might mitigate its offensiveness. The FCC left the status of words other than fuck unsettled; broadcasters were warned that the agency would analyze other words on a case-by-case basis.
There are two key problems with the Bono ruling. First, it leaves broadcasters uncertain as to when use of the F-word is permissible. In the aftermath of the Bono ruling, 66 ABC television network affiliates refused to air "Saving Private Ryan" out of fear that the program's use of the F-word would violate FCC policy. The FCC eventually ruled that the film's use of the F-word was not gratuitous, but it remains to be seen how the agency will treat the use of the F-word in other types of programs. Broadcasters claim this uncertainty chills the presentation of serious programming.
Secondly, broadcasters are uncertain as to what other words will be defined by the FCC as "vulgar and coarse." In a series of decisions issued after the Bono ruling, the FCC ruled that words such as pissed and crap were not sufficiently graphic to be patently offensive. Yet, the FCC ruled in 2006 that shit was inherently vulgar. Why the agency regards the word shit to be unacceptable for broadcasting, but tolerates the word pissed is unclear and shows the arbitrariness of FCC decision-making in this area.
One response to the Bono ruling has been the use of tape delays on live programming. Given the uncertainty about words other than fuck and shit that the FCC may regard as vulgar, a prudent broadcaster will excise any questionable language from broadcasts airing outside of the safe harbor.
3) The city council of Virtue, concerned with the proliferation of sexual material on cable, prohibits the cablecasting of "indecent" programming at any time. The ordinance defines indecency as the "patently offensive depiction or description of sexual or excretory activities and organs." Further, the ordinance specifies that the city council, in response to citizen complaints, will assess whether particular programs are indecent. Is this ordinance constitutional? In your answer, discuss the ordinance's complete ban on cable indecency, the definition of indecency, and whether it is permissible for a city council to determine whether cable programs are unprotected speech.
Answer: There are three problems with this ordinance. First, it is a complete prohibition of indecent material that is constitutionally protected on cable. Second, the definition of indecency is unconstitutionally vague. Third, assessment of the status of expression by a city council is unconstitutional.
In cases such as Playboy Entertainment, the Supreme Court has emphasized the distinctions between cable and broadcast technology. In particular, cable systems may block, on a household by household basis, the reception of channels subscribers find to be offensive. Moreover, courts and the FCC have treated cable, a subscription medium, as an invited guest into the home, rather than an intruder like broadcasting. Thus, the cable medium is entitled to greater First Amendment protection than broadcasting. Also, indecent material is not completely banned on broadcasting. Rather, it is channeled to those times of day when children are unlikely to be in the audience. Virtue's ordinance is a total ban and as such represents a serious burden on the First Amendment right of adults to view non-obscene sexual material.
The ordinance's definition of indecency is unconstitutionally vague. Outside of the broadcasting context, the Supreme Court has been hostile to vague definitions of non-obscene sexual material. For example, in Reno v. ACLU, the Court found the Congressional definition of Internet indecency to be vague because terms such as "patently offensive" were not properly defined. Without clear definitions, the Court said, communicators would censor themselves. The vague law in Reno created an unconstitutional chilling effect. The Virtue ordinance does not define patently offensive, nor does it explain what role context would play in indecency determinations. In addition to the unconstitutional chilling effect, the vagueness in the ordinance enables the city council to engage in arbitrary decision making.
Finally, the Supreme Court has warned of the dangers of local government officials assessing the constitutional status of expression. In cases involving film licensing, such as Freedman v. Maryland, the Court has stated that only courts have the necessary sensitivity to freedom of expression to assess the status of expression. City council members cannot be trusted to define the unprotected status of expression because they will likely be subject to political pressure. Even if Virtue's ordinance guaranteed prompt judicial review of the city council's decisions, this does not cure the problem of vagueness.
Key Terms
1) Obscenity
Answer: A class of constitutionally unprotected expression. The Supreme Court first ruled obscenity to be unprotected in Roth v. United States (1957), but the Justices spent the next 16 years disagreeing over the definition of obscenity. In Miller v. California (1973), the Court settled on a three-part test for obscenity. First, it must be established that the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. Second, the materials must depict or describe sexual conduct, specified by state or federal law, in a patently offensive manner. Finally, the work, taken as a whole, must lack serious artistic, political, or scientific value. The test is conjunctive; all three parts must be met if a work is to be ruled obscene.
2) Indecency
Answer: Indecent material is sexually oriented but does not meet the Miller definition of obscenity. It is punishable if broadcast during the hours of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Indecency, much like obscenity, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner. Indecency, in contrast to obscenity, need not arouse a prurient interest in sex. In addition, an indecent broadcast program can have serious value and still violate the law. The FCC has said that the serious merit of a program will be considered as a factor, but not necessarily the deciding factor in determining whether a broadcast is indecent. Unlike obscenity, indecency receives some First Amendment protection, which explains why indecency may not be totally banned from the broadcast medium.
3) Safe Harbor
Answer: The time period from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. when broadcast stations may air indecent material without incurring FCC sanctions. To balance the government's need to protect children with the interest of willing adults in receiving indecent broadcasts, the FCC has focused its indecency regulation on the period when children are likely to be in the audience—6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Thus indecency regulation is designed to channel sexually explicit material to certain times of day, rather than ban it completely. A total ban would reduce the adult population to viewing or hearing only that material suitable for children.
4) V-Chip
Answer: In 1996, Congress adopted legislation requiring the ratings of television programs and the installation of computer chips in television sets that would allow parents to block sexual and/or violent programs. The V-Chip law requires that televisions with thirteen-inch or larger screens sold in the U.S. contain a chip that parents may activate to control what their children watch. Major industry groups, such as the National Association of Broadcasters "voluntarily" devised a system of program ratings, ranging from TV-Y to TV-MA. The ratings are transmitted as part of the television signal; parents who do not want their children to view material rated TV-MA, which may include explicit sex and graphic violence, may set the V-Chip to block all TV-MA rated programs. The ratings are assigned to all television programs except news, sports, and unedited MPAA-rated movies on premium cable channels.
5) CIPA
Answer: The Children's Internet Protection Act, enacted in 2001, requires libraries receiving federal funds to install software filters to block adults from accessing obscenity or child pornography and children from accessing material harmful to minors. Patrons engaged in bona fide research may ask librarians to disable filters. The U.S. Supreme Court found
CIPA to be constitutional in United States v. American Library Association (2003). The Court ruled that CIPA does not seriously burden library patrons' access to constitutionally-protected Internet content.
Test Bank for The Law of Public Communication
Kent R. Middleton, William E. Lee
9780205484683
