part of the draft and receive no protection under the first amendment. as technologies become more mainstream, the courts tend to catch up. 37 years afterj0'?p0z& the court agreed.

they said that this is just within the scope of the municipal regulatory power. we have had a different level of protection for each medium as it comes along. imagine if your hypothetical regulator walking into a room and you see a monitofive monitos showing the same image. the question is, can't i regulate this -- can i regulate this? that answer will be, it depends. it depends upon what they're

talking about in terms of the media. not whether you can regulate the information. as broadcast regulation developed in the united states, we applied a ninlnine from a decision which said "each medium is a law unto itself." we have had a number of constitutional reach seems -- constitutional regimes. there was no affirmative public interest regulations, no regulations for that speech except for obscenity law. cable telision, it took the

courts a while to work through this. there are some local programming, there are less special restrictions on a bad programming. direct broadcast satellite is very much the same as cable. there are some set-aside requirements. none of the special restrictions for indecency because of the subscription medium. no affirmative public interest obligations and no decency regulations for the internet. broadcast television, however, is now laboring under the same model articulated by the supreme court decision in 1932. there are affirmative public- interest obligations by virtue of the grant of the license. there are special restrictions

on bad programming. statement on that one. whether the picture tube is half full or half empty depends on your perspective. if you look at that technologies on the end, tateenddvd/dvr, broadcast, cable, the intnet. the middle has various levels of communication. what happens in a world of divergence? if we have created different first amendment test, what happens when the media comes together? we will have a mixed. why do we have regulatory convergence where some of the requirements that existed for broadcast media apply for everyone or do that previously

applied regulations fall away because of the nature for convergence? we don't have an answer. we have begun to explore the issue. there was a case, reno verses aclu. there, they tried to regulate indecency on the internet as they do on television. the supreme court says that this is not a scarce commodity and it held that on-line communication is a converged medium and it is nnot obligated to -- this is the first time that this has happened so quickly.

it usually takes decades. what happens to this medium as we look at further possibilities? some have suggestion as different media uses different methods of communication that the regulations associated with one should transfer to the other. because newspapers are using satellite distribution and therefore you are using spectrum, you should be able to regulate the content of their editorials because they would be more like newspapers. i was wondering if anyone could tell me who was responsible for saying this. anybody? we have already had this kind of

theory. we should have a more lawful plainfield by extending regulation to all media rather than looking at them individual. -- we should have a more lawful playing field. some of the same arguments are being made the former chairman heinz case speech in which he argued that the time for broadcasting is essentially done. it is time for the internet and broadband to be that, in medium. this implies that there should be public interests applied to the new medium as the old.

of course, one of the historic to justification's for extending this kind of regulations is children who have access to a broad range of media that did not exist when the standards were first created. it has been repeated in a number of ways. congress charged the fcc to study various media platforms to see whether or not parental empowerment techniques were effected. they asked them to look at this across all platforms. they reported to congress last august and provided a comprehensive report that explained a broad range of parental technology. they concluded that we need further study. that came in the form of a

notice of inquiry that is currently under way. like a the pact before this, this notice asks commentators to provide comment on all platforms to see whether or not there are adequate protections for children or some basis for extending fcc regulations beyond its traditional sphere of power. if this is the trend, if this is where we are going, how far do these arguments extent? ron collins suggested that it is inevitable that sooner or later we will see regulation of devices like the kindle.

they use the wireless spectrum. we have to worry about what kind of influence that the children could get. this is one of the most widely centered books in america because of complaints of witchcraft. -- widely censored books in america because of complaints of witchcraft. amazon does not have all of the books, it has about 450,000. eleven people might feel they might have been excluded considering they did not have all of the "new york times," best sellers. some people could demand that campaign biographies should be included as a kindled download. -- kindle download.

we have a number of proceedings currently under way. these key up these issues to determine where regulation goes next. >> that is a great explanation. >> we want to talk about constitutionally building on this survey of where we are. i like the title of this panel. what is the rationale for regulation? what is the rationale for regulating new technology? that it turns out to be easy. the supreme court has given it a strong guidance that new technologies should have the same full first amendment protections as the print media.

not all countries see it that way. article 19 of the declaration of human rights talks about freedom of expression regardless to borders but we never had a medium that would act regardless of orders. once we had it, many countries tried to put those borders back up. here, as in other countries, the state can regulate data protection and privacy, prosecute crime to regulate deceptive trade practices. as the content on new technologies, the first amendment should be full and robust. what happens to the regulation of legacy media when you have these new digital technologies that are getting full first amendment technologies? does the advent mean anything to

the existing technologies? the answer is clearly yes. content regulation and structural regulation. i will continue to focus on broadcasting. the supreme court held in the 1970 cost that broadcast media had the most limited first amendment rights of any media. -- the supreme court held in the 1970's that broadcast media had the most limited first amendment rights. there was no videotape or dvd media available. direct broadcast did not exist. the internet did not exist. mobile telephones did not exist. radio was the only mobile medium out. there was not even a walkman.

the court found that broadcasting content can be regulated because of its unique and pervasive presence, because it is impossible completely to afford. today, we have a very different picture. 90% of homes use cable, satellite, or stelco systems for their -- telco systems for their television. you can block objectionable channels. thousands of hours of program are available on the internet. our kids use all of these sources interchangeably. is time to revisit the way that we regulate content. -- it is time to revisit the way

that we regulate content. broadcasters compete not only against television and radio but against satellite, cable, telephone companies,@@@@@@@ @ å investigates the merger of

newspapers as if newspapers only compete with each other and television stations only compete with each other. parity in a regulatory approach makes sense. p,we need to look at whether te constitutional basis has fallen away. i don't think that the supreme court would go that far. regulation of broadcasting was based on the scarcity of spectrum in an older decision. because not all who want the spectrum can use it and the government is able to use regulation on those that do use the spectrum. whether there is scarcity of spectrum is a different question. the fcc chairman has spoken out

inspection crisis. we now have a national broadband plan that repeats the current fcc's opinion. the court could find that scarcity is the wrong measurement to use. even if they have constitutional authority to regulate at 40, the question is if the advent of new digital technologies should encourage them to exercise that authority. i think it should. there are burdens on broadcast and the other media do not there. the current fcc seems to be looking for a new vision in the broadcasting industry. any data driven analysis on how the media should be regulated will recognize that there should

be more equality with regulated media and this could be done in a way to provide incentives and a greater degree of diversity. >> i distributed slides which are in your hand out. i will skip and using them because of the format. this is part of a paper i have written and it will be in on line. when we solve the internet our rise, there was many things said. this is the death of wholesalers. there will be no mediation in the economic arena. we found out that that was not true.

if you are a hospital, you have to buy approximately 40,000 products. you will not want to shop all of them directly. in the low value items, you can negotiate other deals. we saw this on the economic side and on the free-speech side. the internet means that individual speakers will connected directly to their audiences without dealing with intermediaries. that has been not true. why? there is a lot of that speech out there that we don't want to run into. -- there is a lot of whabad speech. spam, viruses, various types of

things. they were expensive to maintain, they were extremely buggy. we have that filtering but the vast majority has to into the network. it is cheaper to catch this them early before they deliver it to your desktop. -- is cheaper to catch the spam. there is a wonderful new feature of about catching bot nets. they get instructions from a centralized web site and they can turn a into a distributed supercomputer. they can launch attacks and services tax. there is a new detection

mechanism that looks at the request for web site addresses. but if one of these programs was on your computer, it would have to get instructions from somewhere. they can look and see why all of these people are going to a russian website. they are looking at the information as an aggregate on the network. this depends on looking at a lot of different computers and looking at their behavior. it is not necessarily fighting that content with but finding good content. -- it is not necessarily fighting bad content. i look for good content and people that i trust.

sometime in is a search engine. sometimes i will have a new idea. i will jump on a search engine and try to find the information. i cannot crawl on the entire network every day. the real question is not is there will be an intermediary but hoopewho. we turned to the first amendment space and we needed these people to make good speech useful. we had a very much for line of precedent from other forms of electronic communication that explains the value of having someone serving as intermediary. what is interesting is that, they start off by looking at

newspapers. if you look at the newspapers, and they recognize the rule of absolute freedom. they said that newspaper editorial discretion is limited by their ability to attract enough readers to cover their costs. it does not matter if they served as a conduit for other people's speech. that to editorial ability is absolutely perfect. that was reaffirmed in other cases have. it has been said that it does not matter if there is a limited amount of voices. it does not matter if there is private censorship the first amendment is a restriction on

the government and not on private actors. it is not that the dangers of private censorship do not exist, but government censorship is worse. to have the government fixed the problems with private censorship, the cure would be worse than the disease. we have some intervention. what does the government do? broadcast is different than newspapers. if a the exceptions to not apply to the internet, then the internet gets first -- gets full first amendment rights. there would be a tremendous amount of channels. 565 cable networks currently available as recognized by the fcc.

if you cannot get on television, it is probably because your program is that not because of a lack of opportunity. in reno converses aclu, that dr. and does not apply to the internet. -- in reno versus aclu, that doctrine does not apply to the internet. this is and medium that is universally accessible to children. the supreme court has held the rationale does not apply to the internet because it is filtering technology. you have taken the action to initiate a search.

that deals with broadcast regulations, what about table? this comes out of turner one. this embraced the newspaper model as a baseline. it says that there is a physical bottleneck. it cannot just be an economic bottle neck. they said if there is a physical control, then you have an exception. but courts have held in all of these cases that this does not apply to the internet because you have a competitive internet space. you have cable and dsl fighting it out. you have wireless coming on as i increase in the effected platform. -- on as an increasingly

effective platform. there are actually two overlooked by presideprecedents. the one that gets the least is telephone. there is a dial-up set which says that in fact a phone company can keep certain kinds of objections material off. the first amendment challenges against the rules preventing telephone companies from providing cable television programs. even though you are providing a common service, you have a right to be free from the government preventing you from the sending

mass media if that is what you want to do. in the world of carriers, there is a great deal of editorial discretion. there are a couple of cautionary notes coming from the broadcasting world. what happens when at the government tries to regulate editorial discretion? there is one example of when private individual's exercise t o little -- private individuals exercise too little. you have an obligation to make sure the channel is used propertproperly. what we found is that the bar on time was hurting foreign language programming. the other side is too much

editorial discretion. there is the frustration about the ability to develop standards. the total reduction in the total amount of speech was sound. there's also the manipulation of the rules for political purposes. what has been shown is that there was a product by a systematic campaign by the cold johnson and kennedy administrations to silence the -- a systematic campaign by the johnson and kennedy administrations to silence their opponents. people will use the rules to whatever leverage they can use. the internet is not new. in the supreme court