ten billion butterfly sneezes

The first amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.¹

Note the Congress in the above.

Now, shift to this article entitled FCC’s Martin Speaks Out on Indecency, wherein we find the following gem regarding “ala carte” and/or “family-friendly tier” cable programming:

“The industry needs to do more to address parents’ legitimate concerns,” Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin told a congressionally sponsored forum. “Something has to be done.”

The industry? I’ve been able to control programming coming into my home from day one; it’s called the remote control. Or, when all else fails, the power button. Maybe these concerned parents should try that. And, last I checked, the FCC is part of the executive, not legislative, branch. Note the forum was “congressionally sponsored”. And, later in the above article, we find this, from a duly elected representative of the people:

Sen. Ted Stevens, R.-Alaska, chair of the Commerce Committee, which is working toward passing anti-indecency legislation, convened the daylong forum in Washington.

[snippage]

“We want to let Congress have a better chance to understand all of the points of view,” Stevens said. He did not say what form legislation might take but said, “Parents have a right to try to protect their children from some of the things they can run into in the media.”

“Congress shall make no law…”, etc. Maybe parents should, well, parent, and accept some responsibility for their parenting actions, instead of looking to the government. “Protect the children” in the above is code for “here goes another one of those pesky rights from the Bill of Rights”; I trust that is axiomatic.

I’ve also subscribed to Susan Crawford’s Blog. She includes the link above, and concludes her observations with an eloquence which this blog ‘o’mine can only dream about:

So here’s what we need: an idealistic, persuasive, charismatic, well-informed mogul of the First Amendment. Someone who isn’t conflicted by client representations or business interests. Someone who can talk to the whole country about the importance of the free flow of speech online and off. Someone who can lead.

Send word if you spot this person on the street or in a meeting.

We need someone like that. Soon.

-k-

1 - Thanks to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell U.

Technorati Tags: FCC, First Amendment, susancrawford