Federal Censorship Commission?

FEDERAL CENSORSHIP COMMISSION?
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal 11/3, AUTHOR: Bob Wright, NBC Universal]
[Commentary] Two years ago, I warned in these pages of the danger that the government, in response to the infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during January's televised Super Bowl, would use the threat of fines and license-revocation to create a climate of self-censorship among broadcasters. I take no pleasure in saying "I told you so." But the chill in the airwaves is unmistakable, and the viewing public is the biggest loser. The most recent example involves dozens of CBS affiliates who refused to rebroadcast the documentary "9/11" for fear they would be fined for the coarse words uttered by rescuers. This is one of many instances of broadcast licensees altering or canceling worthwhile programming out of concern about finding themselves in the Federal Communications Commission's crosshairs. So what is the answer? It is certainly not that government should regulate content on cable TV and the Internet. But there is a reasonable solution. Just as parents use technology on the Internet, ratings information and blocking technology are available for TV. Broadcast and cable networks have a ratings and parental-advisory system, and today's TV sets are equipped with V-chips that block specified programming from entering a home. The entire TV industry is striving to provide parents with help to guide them through today's thicket of offerings. To make sure parents are aware of the control they have over programming, the TV industry and Ad Council are collaborating on a $300 million educational campaign. The FCC should formulate policies that take advantage of advanced technology, rather than hark back to solutions developed in -- and for -- a bygone era. An appropriate FCC policy would recognize that our TV audience is quite varied; that some programs at all hours should appropriately serve the two-thirds of households that do not have children; and that blocking technology is a 21st-century solution that is consistent with the Supreme Court's admonition that the government is constrained by the First Amendment to use the least restrictive means to address "indecent" programming content.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116251978478212180-y2J46sU199Onen...
(requires subscription)