OCR Text |
Show Arguments for This ballot proposal would require of Cable television the same standard of broadcast decency that is required of network television. The effect of this measure would be to require Cable broadcasters to disseminate over Cable television material that is of the same standard of decency as that which is broadcast by the mjor networks, which are iegulated by the Federal Communications Commission. There would be no more stringent requirement made of the Cable broadcaster under this statute than the Federal Communications Commission now requires of the network broadcasters. This statute is being submitted to the people of the State because it is well documented that Cable programs in the State of Utah have carried increasingly indecent and obscene material. In these programs have been depictions of deviant sexual acts which have been presented in graphic detail. It is beyond denial that the Cable systems have repeatedly broadcast material which would never have been shown over network television. The spokesmen for the Cable industry will attempt to distort the issue by asserting that "there are already laws against the broadcast of pornographic material in Utah." The seeming truth of that statement is totally beside the point since, in fact, the burden of proof forpresent laws which were drafted for the prohibition of printed pornography make it almost impossible for any prosecutor to effectively utilize existing law against a Cable broadcaster. The State Legislature has enacted a Cable Broadcast statute which is presently before the federal courts as to its constitutionality. A final decision on that statute has yet to be issued. The people of the State can further protect themselves against the dissemination of indecent material over Cable Television by the enactment of this ballot proposition. The effect of this proposition will be to provide State and local law enforcement officials with an additional weapon that contains not only criminal but civil sanctions for the violation of the statute. Legitimate constitutional issues such as those in the First Amendment are not jeopardized by this statute. The stat ut e clearly provides that the exhibition of the proscribed material must be done in a mannerto intentionally appeal to a morbid interest in sex or excretion. That type of programming which may reveal the human body in nudity but which is clearly for educational, scientific or literary purposes would not be proscribed by this statute. The r'H.iirement for a jury to conclude that the Innadoaster intended to disseminate material which was a violation of the statute more than protects any individual against a possible infringement upon their constitutional ;hK The author of the Ballot Proposition has had twenty years of experience in legal confrontation with the pornography industry. It is his opinion as a lawyer licensed to practice in the State of California, before the Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States, that the proposition is constitutionally valid and one which will protect the people from the unnecessary and undesired exhibition of indecent material over Cable television. Mr. John Harmer Chairman, Citizens Commission for Yes on Initiative A 2953 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 Rebuttal to Arguments against Initiative A The proposed cable "decency law now on the ballot was originally presented to the Utah Legislature in 1983. After careful review by the Attorney General, legal advisers, and legislative leaders, this law was overwhelmingly rejected. Even the most ardent supporters of cable programming restrictions have recognized the obvious legal defects of this law. The Legislature rewrote the law and did pass a substitute law, Senate Bill 309. The substitute law is now under review by the federal court. Passage of this referendum will inevitably result in yet another legal challenge. Even the Attorney General, who must defend this law if passed, has expressed publicly his view that the law is seriously flawed, and has recognized the likely outcome of such a legal challenge. The whole issue of regulating cable TV programming is presently being litigated. Serious questions have been raised as to whether federal law has preempted any state regulation of cable programming. Additionally, numerous First Amendment questions have been raised and have yet to be answered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Answers to these questions will be provided as the present case, Community Television c. Wilkinson, winds its way through the judicial process. To pass another state cable law before some of the questions already raised by prior laws are answered is premature and unproductive. Regardless of ones personal opinions of cable programming laws generally, the wisdom of rejecting this particular referendum should be apparent. Mark E. Carter, President Utah Cable Television Operators Association P.O. Box 6045, Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 James K. Bunnel Director of Public Affairs Utah Cable Television Operators Association P.O. Box 6045, Salt Lake City, Utah 84106 |