We are stepping up to raise funds this #GivingTuesday for Access Humboldt because we know how imperative it is to have Free Speech, Government Transparency, and Educational content centered in Localism on local TV.
When YOU support our team by donating or creating your own personal fundraiser, YOU are keeping FREE SPEECH alive. You are also keeping local government transparent and making meetings from 7 cities/3 JPAs accessible to the whole county--increasing civic engagement. You are also preserving our local cultures, stories, and voices in an authentic non-commercialized way.
According to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984:
Act requires cable to set aside PEG channels
The 1984 act requires cable operators to set aside channels for public, educational, and governmental use, commonly known as PEG channels. The cable operator exercises little control over the content on these channels, which are used for a wide variety of programming, including but not limited to public meetings, delivery of instructional material, and student-produced television programs.
Act gives cable operators First Amendment protection
Although the cable act includes a provision punishing the transmission of obscenity over the cable system, it gives cable operators First Amendment protection for program content (unlike over-the-air broadcasters). State and local government franchisors may specify the number and types of channels and authorize public access, but cannot require specific program services.
Court cases challenged obscenity and PEG provisions
Several court cases challenged the obscenity provisions and the requirement for facilities and financial support for PEG channels.
In Daniels Cablevision v. United States (D.D.C. 1993), a federal district court upheld PEG access provisions against First Amendment challenges as valid regulatory requirements based on “affording speakers with less market appeal access to the nation’s most pervasive video distributions technology.”
Courts have generally held that PEG is content neutral and enables a broad range of speakers to access audiences that would otherwise never hear them.
The obscenity challenge, however, has not been completely upheld. The Daniels decision rejected the argument that the obscenity provision would result in self-censorship and fear of controversial programming among timid operators.
It held that obscenity is a constitutional issue that applies to all equally and from which no one can be granted immunity. In Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium v. Federal Communications Commission (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that indecent programs could be censored on leased access, but not on PEG, channels.