Right Balance in Cable Ruling

The Supreme Court struck the right balance Monday when it extended the constitutional protection of free speech to adult-content cable TV channels but did not open the floodgate for sexually explicit cable programming.

The justices protected speech that, they noted, “many citizens find shabby, offensive, even ugly.” The majority also acknowledged that parents have a legitimate interest in keeping smut away from their children. By a 5-4 margin, the court ruled that a federal law aimed at protecting children did so at the expense of the cable companies’ free speech rights. That law was part of the Telecommunications Act.

The 1996 act gave cable channels like Playboy, Spice and AdultVision a choice of either scrambling sexually explicit programs for all nonsubscribers--which many older analog cable systems cannot do effectively--or broadcasting only at night. This shielded children but went too far in restricting the broadcasters’ free speech rights.

The same law, the majority pointed out, offered a less drastic remedy--requiring the cable operators to provide free and complete blocking of sex channels for those customers who wanted it. A tiny fraction of parents made such requests, a sign that complete blocking systemwide for nonsubscribers would be regulatory overkill.

Clearly, rules can protect both free speech and children. The challenge for regulators, especially with the emergence of new media that allow tailor-made broadcasting, is to find the balance between the two.