WASHINGTON, DC — If all goes according to rumored plans, outgoing Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin will attempt a lame-duck coup on pornography during December’s meetings of the regulatory body.Martin, a Bush appointee and long an advocate of “sterilizing” the Web — ostensibly in order to protect children from sexually explicit material and other content some nebulous someone somewhere doesn’t think they’re ready to process — reportedly will push other commissioners to approve a plan to award a portion of the wireless spectrum to a company that promises to provide nationwide wireless broadband internet access free of charge. The catch? The free service will be filtered for “objectionable” content. Adults who wish to access the un-restricted Web may opt out of the filtering, but that likely will force them into a paid tier of service.
The plan alarms free-speech advocates because it opens the door for the FCC to regulate decency on the internet, a task which Martin has made no bones about wanting under his agency’s aegis.
There are several problems with loosing the FCC on the Web. For one thing, the agency hasn’t proved itself all that adept at regulating the content over which it has undisputed authority: television and radio. It remains embroiled in a three-year-old legal battle over whether seconds of airtime exposing Janet Jackson’s breast during a Super Bowl halftime show constituted indecency. If the FCC can’t even do a reasonable job with 500 broadcast channels, how does it hope to regulate content on millions of websites?
For another, who would decide where filtering lines would be drawn? Would content that considered offensive when presented to a 6-year-old be equally as verboten for a 16-year-old? Would medical sites that deliver information about sexuality and birth control be off limits? What about news and gaming sites that feature violent material? Sites that present alternative religious viewpoints?
It’s a potential regulatory hornet’s nest.
In addition to filtering concerns, the plan also faces objection from cellular service provider T-Mobile, which paid $4 billion to lease the adjacent spectrum and claims the band now under consideration would interfere with its services.
