My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_01787
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF1000 - PF1999
>
1700-1799
>
pf_01787
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2024 12:15:36 PM
Creation date
2/21/2024 12:07:40 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
1787
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
289
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.