|
ACTION CALENDAR
Date: 7-23-02
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Councilmember Dona Spring
Subject: PROPOSED Regulation of “indecent”
material on cable access
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council not adopt the proposed measure to regulate
"indecent" material on Berkeley Community Cable TV due to constitutional
and other problems.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a legal opinion from James B. Chanin, an attorney who argues
that the proposed ordinance regulating "Indecent Programming on Peg
Channels" is unconstitutional. Mr. Chanin had a good track record
on constitutional issues regarding free speech and the First Amendment.
Mr. Chanin and the ACLU successfully sued the City of Berkeley over its
restrictions on panhandling which the court ruled was unconstitutional.
In addition, Mr. Chanin successfully represented Spectator newspaper against
the City of Alameda in a first amendment case regarding explicit sexual
material. He said he may be interested in pursuing a suit against the
City of Berkeley should of the Council proceed with the proposed ordinance.
After reading Mr. Chanin’s legal analysis, I have come to the following
conclusions:
1. While I support a parents’ right to decide what kind of
adult materials their children are exposed to, there is also a responsibility
for parents to use reasonable means available to keep those materials
from them. In the particular case of Berkeley’s community access
channel less restrictive remedies are available to parents who want to
restrict their children from viewing sexually explicit depictions on cable
TV. For example, the cable television provider makes boxes available that
can go on one or more televisions in the households that can block off
Channel 25 on the particular television set that is viewed by children.
In these households, Channel 25 could be available on a television that
is supervised by an adult after 10 PM. In making First Amendment restrictions,
the least restrictive remedy must be applied. It is reasonable to expect
that parents take some responsibility for not allowing their children
to view materials they consider unsuitable.
2. HBO and Showtime use 10 PM as a guideline for viewing adult materials.
These commercial channels undoubtedly base that guideline on the FCC guideline
of 10 PM. For the City to change that guideline means that the new time
restrictions will have to be enforced by the City instead of the District
Attorney. It will also make that restriction harder to legally defend
since it is not based on FCC guidelines or standard commercial practices.
This time could be viewed as being more restrictive than if necessary
in curtailing First Amendment rights.
3. The proposed ordinance regulating "indecent" material has
not shown any evidence substantiating the claim that harm has been caused
to minors and to the efficacy of the proposed legislation. In fact, according
to Brian Scott, the executive director of BCM only approximately 15 calls/e-mails
have been logged complaining about the "in indecent" material
being shown after 10 PM. Half of those have been from one individual.
In contrast, there have been over 100 e-mails and calls from members of
the public who object to the further restriction of programming considered
to be adult in nature.
4. There is no analysis of what effect this ordinance will have on BCM
and the functioning of our public access channels which are on a shoestring
budget. If this ordinance gets passed and producers defy it, it will take
a great deal of staff time to review the tapes and make decisions.
Who will make the decision? Will it the left up to one person to decide?
(Ultimately if someone appeals it will be the City Attorney.) The ordinance
provides that the City (albeit the City Attorney) will make a decision
as to whether the BCM director is making the proper decisions. On the
other hand, there is no means for a producer to contest what the BCM director
decides. I would think that this puts the BCM director in a very awkward
position vis-a-vis the spirit of community access.
The City Council will have to pay for the additional staff necessary to
watch the videotapes and pay for other people to watch videos to make
a determination. This could be up to an additional $100,000. What is the
City Council going to cut to pay for implementation of this ordinance?
How will the City attorney investigate every complaint comes in regarding
the decisions being made by the BCM director? How much of her time is
going to be spent on this endeavor? If the City Council decides to move
ahead with this ordinance it should first refer the annual cost to the
budget process before implementation.
I think it is much preferable not to create a political process regarding
material shown on cable access but, leave it to the process that now exists.
(It has not been demonstrated that the process is broken.) Currently the
process is that when a complaint comes in, the director of BCM tells the
complaintant to document the date, time, the title of the program and
send it to him. That information is turned over to the District Attorney
who makes the decision whether to prosecute. If the City passes this ordinance,
it will fall to the City to enforce it, and take it out of the District
Attorney's purview.
The City is on shaky legal grounds. The City Attorney's is basing her
proposed ordinance on the Seattle ordinance. The fact that Seattle ordinance
has not been challenged to date does not mean the Berkeley (the so called
birth place of free speech) ordinance will withstand legal challenge.
If it is challenged and is upheld as unconstitutional, there is a risk
that even the after 10 PM time will not stand. The FCC 10 PM time is purely
a voluntary guideline because in 1984 it was struck down by the U.S. Supreme
Court. The Council by setting a time that if more restrictive than the
FCC regulation of 10 PM creates more of a legal risk. The FCC undoubtedly
chose 10 PM (not 11 PM or 12 PM) because 10 PM is a standard bedtime for
minors and better met the challenge of the least restrictive curtailing
of First Amendment rights. To keep it into perspective, much more adult
material is available any time of the day on the Internet, and the conservative
Supreme Court shot down Attorney General Ashcroft’s attempt to censor
it. Typing a three letter word into a computer is just about is easy as
changing the Channel on the TV remote. How seriously will this ordinance
protect minors who want to view "adult materials"?
Currently, the voluntary system is working in that producers are showing
material judged to be adult in nature after 10 PM. There are only been
several complaints. There are other reasonable remedies for dealing with
the complaints.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: NONE
CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Dona Spring 981 7140
James Chanin, Attorney at Law
3050 Shattuck Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94705
July 9, 2002
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Berkeley
2180 Milvia Street
Berkeley, California 94704
Re: Ordinance Regarding AIndecent Programming on Peg Channels@
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am writing to strongly urge you to not vote in favor of the proposed
ordinance regarding AIndecent Programming on Peg Channels.@ The proposed
ordinance is clearly unconstitutional under prior United States Supreme
Court decisions and constitutes an heretofore unprecedented attempt by
the City of Berkeley to regulate the content of speech which is not illegal
and which is protected under the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Although the City Attorney relies on the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft
v. ACLU in her memo to the Council recommending adoption of this ordinance,
the City Attorney ignores the fact that 1) the Supreme Court in Ashcroft
did not rule in favor of the Government on the constitutionality of the
internet porn law and, instead, allowed the preliminary injunction against
enforcement of the law to remain in place pending the resolution of the
merits of the plaintiffs= claims that the law is unconstitutionally overbroad
and fails to meet strict scrutiny; and 2) two prior Supreme Court decisions
on the issue of regulating adult material on cable television have struck
down laws similar to the proposed ordinance, concluding that they constituted
overbroad attempts to regulate the content of protected speech under the
First Amendment. See, e.g., Denver Area Educ. Telcoms. Consortium v. FCC,
518 U.S. 727 (1996) and United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529
U.S. 803 (2000).
In Denver Area Educ. Telcoms, the Supreme Court held that a law regulating
Aindecent@ material on public access cable television broadcasts was unconstitutional
because of a lack of evidence substantiating the claimed harm being caused
to minors and the efficacy of the proposed legislation. The Court held:
AIn the absence of a factual basis substantiating the harm and the efficacy
of its proposed cure, we cannot assume that the harm exists or that the
regulation redresses it. See HR3B, Turner, 512 U.S. at 664-665. The upshot,
in respect to the public access channels, is a law that could radically
change present programming-related relationships among local community
and nonprofit supervising boards and access managers, which relationships
are established through municipal law, regulation, and contract. In doing
so, it would not significantly restore editorial rights of cable operators,
but would greatly increase the risk that certain categories of programming
(say, borderline offensive programs) will not appear. At the same time,
given present supervisory mechanisms, the need for this particular provision,
aimed directly at public access channels, is not obvious. Having carefully
reviewed the legislative history of the Act, the proceedings before the
FCC, the record below, and the submissions of the parties and amici here,
we conclude that the Government cannot sustain its burden of showing that
'' 10(c) is necessary to protect children or that it is appropriately
tailored to secure that end. See, e. g., Columbia Broadcasting, 412 U.S.
at 127; League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. at 398-399; Sable, 492 U.S. at
126. Consequently, we find that this third provision violates the First
Amendment.@
Similarly, in the instant case, the City of Berkeley has failed to show
any factual bases for this proposed ordinance or that the proposed ordinance
will, in fact, redress any such harm. For example, there has been no evidence
presented showing the number of households who receive the cable broadcasts
who have minors who have been exposed to any programming which allegedly
would violate the Aoffensive to minors@ standard set forth in the ordinance.
Nor has there been any evidence presented that the households where minors
have been exposed to this programming would have any problem with having
the potentially offensive material blocked. As noted above, the Supreme
Court struck down a similar law in the Denver case despite evidence developed
in the legislative history of the statute as well as before the Federal
Communications Commission.
In United States v. Playboy Entm't Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000), the
Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to require that the Playboy
channel fully scramble its adult programming (which would sometimes Ableed@
through and be viewed by children) or limit their transmissions because
it found that customers could order signal blocking on a household-by-household
basis and that constituted an effective, less restrictive alternative
to preventing minors from being exposed to Aindecent@ broadcast material.
In the Playboy case, the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to the
statute because it was a content-based speech restriction. The Supreme
Court in that case held that the United States did not meet its burden
of showing that there was a pervasive, nationwide problem of signal bleeding
nor sufficient evidence that a well-promoted blocking provision would
inform parents about signal bleed and about their rights to have the bleed
blocked. Since the Government failed to show that the statute was the
least restrictive means of protecting minors from exposure to the material,
the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in holding the
statute violative of the First Amendment.
Similarly, in the instant case, the City cannot meet its burden of showing
that there is a pervasive problem with minors being exposed to the alleged
Aindecent@ material nor that a well-promoted blocking provision would
not adequately protect minors in households where the parents wish to
prevent their access to this material.
In addition to the fact that the Supreme Court has previously struck down
two federal laws aimed at addressing the exposure of minors to Aindecent@,
but not illegally, obscene material, there are a number of other reasons
why the Berkeley ordinance is unlikely to pass Astrict scrutiny@ and will
likely be found to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
For example, in April 2002, just a month before deciding the Ashcroft
v. ACLU case, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal statute prohibiting
Avirtual child pornography@ to be unconstitutional because it was overbroad
and failed to satisfy the strict scrutiny analysis. In that case, while
recognizing the important governmental interest in protecting children
from being victimized by pedophiles, the Court found that the statute
prohibited cartoons and computer generated depictions of under-aged minors
having sex and would have outlawed such movies as American Beauty and
Traffic which portrayed teenagers involved in sexual relationships.
In striking down the law as an overbroad restriction on the First Amendment,
the Court noted:
AOur society, like other cultures, has empathy and enduring fascination
with the lives and destinies of the young. Art and literature express
the vital interest we all have in the formative years we ourselves once
knew, when wounds can be so grievous, disappointment so profound, and
mistaken choices so tragic, but when moral acts and self-fulfillment are
still in reach. Whether or not the films we mention violate the CPPA,
they explore themes within the wide sweep of the statute's prohibitions.
If these films, or hundreds of others of lesser note that explore those
subjects, contain a single graphic depiction of sexual activity within
the statutory definition, the possessor of the film would be subject to
severe punishment without inquiry into the work's redeeming value. This
is inconsistent with an essential First Amendment rule: The artistic merit
of a work does not depend on the presence of a single explicit scene.
See Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure"
v. Attorney General of Mass., 383 U.S. 413, 419, 16 L. Ed. 2d 1, 86 S.
Ct. 975 (1966) (plurality opinion) ("The social value of the book
can neither be weighed against nor canceled by its prurient appeal or
patent offensiveness").
In addition, the ordinance is likely to be deemed void because of its
vagueness. The ordinance does not clearly set forth either the procedures
for determining whether a particular program violates the ordinance, nor
does it clearly set forth the standards for the Agrievance@ procedure
or any penalties for the violation of the ordinance. The ordinance also
vests virtually unlimited discretion in the PEG Manager for determining
whether a violation has occurred, thereby opening the door for arbitrary
and capricious decision-making which can itself lead to Equal Protection,
Due Process and other constitutional claims by producers unfairly singled
out for enforcement activity.
The ordinance also allows for community members to lodge complaints whenever
a program does not suit their individual tastes or sensibilities. Rather
than subjecting the broadcast material to a ABerkeley community standard
as a whole,@ the ordinance subjects individual producers of the broadcasts
to the very real possibility that whatever they produce will be subject
to a grievance hearing based on the individual tastes of community members.
Since those complaints will not be forwarded to the City of Berkeley for
action but, instead, to individual PEG managers, the likelihood that they
will be subject to arbitrary, capricious and unequal treatment appears
to be certain. As a result, producers will likely be forced to self-censor
their productions in fear of being hauled into a grievance procedure at
their own expense whenever someone in the community is offended by their
production.
It also appears that the ordinance would fail the Astrict scrutiny@ test
because there is no evidence that minors are any less likely to see the
Aindecent@ programming if it appears after midnight instead of 10:00 p.m.
If children are being exposed to Aindecent@ programming at 10:00 p.m.,
the question arises as to what kind of supervision the parents are giving
those children and whether there would be any better supervision between
the hours of midnight and six a.m. The statute would, therefore, substantially
restrict the rights of adults to view Aindecent,@ but legal and protected
material simply because parents do not wish to be bothered with supervising
what their children watch on household television screens between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and midnight or because they do not wish to be bothered
with blocking the channels from their cable system.
The City Attorney=s memorandum also ignores an important distinction between
the proposed ordinance in this case and the internet porn statute in the
Ashcroft v. ACLU decision. In Ashcroft, the statute regulated only commercial
internet sites and did not purport to regulate non-commercial sites. In
the instant case, the Berkeley ordinance, by its very nature, attempts
to limit the rights of its citizens to produce and view lawful and protected
material on public access stations which is non-commercial in nature.
As such, it constitutes an unprecedented attempt to limit the free speech
rights of non-commercial producers, broadcasters, and artists as well
as its adult citizens to access such material if they so desire.
In her memorandum, the City Attorney states that AIt is unlikely that
the implementation of this ordinance will result in any increased costs.@
I would beg to differ, however, because I believe it is extremely likely
that even if the City survives a facial challenge to the constitutionality
of the ordinance (which I strongly doubt), it is likely to be subjected
to civil suits by individual producers who are singled out for enforcement
of this ordinance or whose productions do not meet the Aindecent to minors@
standard and are forced to litigate their right to broadcast their material
in Court. Prevailing parties in such suits will be entitled to recover
their attorneys= fees and costs against the City of Berkeley under both
state and federal law.
There is no legitimate reason why the City of Berkeley should adopt this
unprecedented attempt to regulate the free speech rights of its citizens.
By doing so, the City will be restricting the rights of its adult citizens
to produce and access legal material. The adoption of this clearly unconstitutional
ordinance will certainly lead to expensive and time consuming litigation
when the City could better use its resources for educating parents and
teachers about the currently available means for restricting access of
their children to Aindecent@ material by way of blocking channels, television
timer devices, channel blocking on individual television units, parental
supervision and other less restrictive alternatives. Therefore, I strongly
urge you to reject this proposed ordinance and that it not be adopted.
Sincerely,
JAMES B. CHANIN
Back to Censorship Home
Back
to FMUP home |