Two pieces of legislation currently wending their way through Congress could have a significant impact on talk radio — from chilling opinion and conversation, to prompting criminal prosecution of both broadcast and Internet talk show hosts.
Keep an eye on these guys...
The most direct threat comes from H.R. 1966, the Megan Meier Cyber-Bullying Prevention Act. While the legislation supposedly targets threats and harassment delivered via the Internet — including, presumably, Internet-delivered radio shows and podcasts – it’s core language leaves plenty of room to cover any electronic medium, including broadcast talk radio:
“Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
‘(b) As used in this section–
‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and ‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’
Note the phrase “anyequipment dependent on electrical power” and the inclusion of “telephone” in that list. Note, too, that the legislation does not limit its coverage to Internet vehicles, but rather “includes” them in its provisions. Even if the bill were Internet-specific, it would still cause trouble for broadcast talkers, most of whom have a strong web presence via blogs, tweets and podcasts. As one blogger headlined it, “Offend Someone on Facebook, Go to Jail.”
H.R. 1966 is currently before the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.
Meanwhile, the Senate is working on S. 909, The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This measure is designed to beef-up federal involvement in the prosecution of crimes allegedly committed against individuals because of their race, color religion, sexual orientation, et cetera. Critics deride the bill as more ”thought crime” legislation.
While S.909 specifically addresses acts of violence, it does pose a potential problem for both broadcast and Internet talkers. The measure justifies federal involvment in hate crimes on Interstate Commerce grounds, including the observation that “[c]hannels, facilities, and instrumentalities of interstate commerce are used to facilitate the commission of such violence.” Radio and the Internet are certainly instruments of interstate commerce. So, exactly what does it mean to “facilitate” an act of violence?
The authors of S. 909, clearly aware of this looming concern, included language saying the act should not be construed as prohibiting any Constitutionally-protected right, including expressions of opinion, religious belief, or group membership.
S. 909 is currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A nearly-identical bill was approved by the House in April, and President Obama has expressed a desire to get the measure enacted as soon as possible.
And you were still worrying about the Fairness Doctrine…
Categories: 