Show Arguments Against unwanted programming is to either not subscribe or to utilize one of many means to restrict access to minors In any event Utah can ill afford yet another expensive legal battle especially since an almost identical law has already been passed and is presently under review by the Federal Court Freedom of choice is what Cable TV is ail about Cable TV offers an array of programs including sports news and for those who want to invite it into their homes movies It is the optional movie channels which this law seeks to in effect censor Instead of trusting Utah residents to pick and choose what they want to watch this proposed cable law seeks to make that choice for us Mr Mark E Carter President Utah Cable Television Operators Association PO Box 6045 Salt Lake City Utah 8410G Obviously not all movies are for everyone and some are clearly inappropriate for children The same is true for programs on regular TV The solution is parental control and not a state mandated law which permits supervision programming that is only fit for children To aid parents in controlling access by minors to inappropriate material the cable industry offers numerous means of controlling Cable TV fare Mr James Bunnell Utah Cable Television Operators Association PO Box 6045 Salt Lake City Mali 84106 Rebuttal to First every parent has the option of not subscribing to the movie channels even if the other cable channels are desired Arguments in favor of Initiative A The Statute requires of Cable television that it adhere to the same standard of decency as network broadcast television The opponents would have you believe that “Kramer v Kramer ” could not be shown on Cable Television if this statute is passed That argument is untrue “Kramer c framer ’’has been shown many times on regular frontal network television simply by omitting one nudity scene This statute would require the same of Cable Second the cable companies provide program guides which clearly warn parents in advance of those programs which are adult oriented boxes Third the cable companies provide which allow parents to turn off channels when they are not home to supervise their children Every subscriber invites cable into his or her home on terms which the subscriber dictates and it is the subscriber who has the obligatioa and right to control cable not the State of Utah Nothing of any redeeming value would be omitted Cable broadcasts by the requirements of the statute from Not all parents monitor what is being viewed by their children or in the homes of their children’s friends Program “lock out boxes” are guides are irrelevant and This referendum is the fifth attempt in recent years by various municipalities and the state legislature to impose a law censoring what they term "indecent material" The most recent attempt passed in 1983 is presently winding its way through the courts Similar laws have been held unconstitutional It seems exceedingly foolish to once again adopt a law which faces the exact legal problems faced by the earlier law The cost of defending such laws are enormous Even those who support such laws must recognize that the wiser course is to wait and see how the courts treat an almost easily by passed The evidentiary requirements for present Utah statutes against pornography make it totally impossible to effectively utilize them against Cable obscenity The Cable industry asks for "freedom of choice” It is freedom of choice of ail the people that is the issue Those people who choose not to have in their home vile degenerate material Those people who choose not to have their chilriien exposed to this type of material — in their own home nr a identical law before passing a new one As each voter evaluates the cable issue it is critical that a distinction is made between pornographic and obscene "indecent” material The cable material and operators of this state have consistently supported laws and which ban obscene pornographic material Utah already has such a laws This referendum however attempts to restrict material which is not obscene but which may be offensive to some Virtually all movies which contain scenes involving nudity such as Kramer v Kramer fall within the neighbors Those people who choose to have a community which decency and dignity are preserved in This statute will not deprive anyone of freedom of choice to have filth It will simply protect those who wish to choose a decent society and a decent community free from the intrusion of degenerate material Mr John L Ilarmo Chairman Citizen’s Commission foi Yes on Initiative Wes' 2953 South tub 8 Salt Lake City ban imposed by this new law In summary this new cable law is unwarranted intrusion by the State into the home The solution to 35- |