Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandunt <br />March 30► 1988 <br />Page 5 <br />urther, the determination of obscene material must city be <br />made on a case -by -case case basis. In other or <br />ou"ld not merely forbid the transmitting <br />each of channel 34 <br />adult programming to be <br />c in general, but <br />reviewed by the decision -makers to determine whether, in <br />their opinion, the work was obscene. <br />in - <br />Since the Company could sue and request a judicial <br />ities <br />tarp <br />retation as to whether a work is aib�hallengeYionctheir <br />could have a major constitutional gig <br />ha <br />nds regarding each work offered on cable channel 34. <br />,c ornoaraphic <br />Your franchises refer to the "exclusion <br />obscene"). Federal <br />material (a lower standard thanautiiori.�ze a <br />Communications Policy Act does not explicitly Erna <br />franchising authority to regulatethetrelulationof <br />which <br />sporno- <br />graphic, however, it does permit regiment in the event <br />graphic material in the franchise agreement is <br />such pornographic material, like obscene material, <br />P protected by the Constitution <br />determined to be not p Section 624(d)(1). The prob- <br />vided over the cable system. <br />ermits a franchising <br />lem with this Section is that it P <br />authority to regulate the carriage of pornographic material, <br />hic material is <br />provided that such regulation of pornographic <br />bse uent1 found to be constitutionally permissible by a <br />su Q y that a court of law would applY the <br />court of law. Assuming such attempt <br />Miller test, it is highly improbable that any <br />at regulation would be upheld. <br />The Senate Report accompanying an early version of <br />Se <br />nate Sill 66, a precursor to the <br />��Cable C Communications <br />Policy Act of 1984, suggests that t <br />or the determination of a breach of the rtaeulare in <br />bons f judicial determination t <br />the absence of a j the Constitu- <br />speech was obscene or otherwise <br />Reunpro e98�67�,y98 Con., 1st <br />tion," was not permitted. S. P was not included <br />Sess. 25 (1983). However, similar languageisla- <br />in the House Report and is therefore <br />es nclicatefthatitheregwas <br />Live history for the Act' riorit drestcaint of otherwise pro - <br />discussion regarding the p n could <br />" and a representative of the company tected speech rior judicial determination as to the <br />argue that, absent a pby <br />protection of pornographic material the a <br />P could not regulate t <br />local authority <br />