Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BLOCK THE INSANITYLEVERAGING MUNICIPAL CABLE FRANCHISING POWERS TO BATTLE CHILDHOOD OBESITY
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING 2010
NOV. 9, 2010 DENVER, COThis work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
How the proposal works
•Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (“CCPA”), Public Law 98-549 (Oct. 30, 1984)
•Most states delegate franchising power to municipalities
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
How the proposal works
•Municipalities act through franchising authorities
•Federal law sets procedures for grant and renewal of franchising agreements
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
“Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed as prohibiting a franchising authority and a cable operator from specifying, in a franchise or renewal thereof, that certain cable services shall not be provided or shall be provided subject to conditions, if such cable services are obscene or are otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States.” - 47 U.S.C. § 544(d)(1) (emphasis added).
Franchising authorities can regulate content
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
“…otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States”?
•This phrase “would also permit changing constitutional interpretations to be incorporated into the standard set forth in [47 U.S.C. § 544(d)(1)], should those judicial interpretations at some point in the future deem additional standards, such as indecency, constitutionally valid as applied to cable.” -House Report on the CCPA. •The types of content covered by this exception within the CCPA would expand with “future U.S. Supreme Court decisions which may find that other kinds of speech are unprotected under the Constitution.” -Senate Report on the CCPA.
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
About V-Chips
•Block TV signals based on ratings
•Ubiquitous
•Not widely used
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
•Rate commercials for target demographic
•Empower V-Chips to block ads to kids
•Default setting should be “blocked”
The proposal
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
•Federal law does not permit franchising authorities to make this sort of demand.
•This proposal unconstitutionally infringes on Free Speech.
Legal arguments against this proposal
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
An ad is deceptive if it is “a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead [a reasonable member of the advertisement’s target audience].” -FTC
Ads to kids are inherently deceptive.
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
•An ad that targets kids exploits their undeveloped minds.
•Accordingly, these ads are likely to mislead a reasonable member of their target demographic.
Ads to kids are inherently deceptive.
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
Constitutional protection for ads was established to protect consumers, not advertisers.
Branding is not constitutionally protected
ROBERT J. L. MOORE, [email protected]
•Municipalities should require cable providers to empower V-Chips with the ability to block advertising to children.
•By default, these ads should be blocked, meaning that parents should have to make the affirmative decision to allow them.
Want to reduce children’s exposure to ads and thereby combat the childhood obesity epidemic?
