Ilene, Your memory is correct, but the circumstances in this new
case are different. The reason the industry was able to defeat this in court
had nothing to do with the first amendment. It had to do with jurisdiction.
It was ruled the first time around that the FCC had over stepped its
authority. The FCC's authority comes directly from congress. The FCC
administers and enforces laws passed by Congress. In the earlier case, it
was shown that Congress had not actually given the FCC the power to
implement mandatory description. The court specifically instructed that if
this was to move forward in future, Congress would need to be clearer in its
instructions.
Now, this time around, because of those court cases, Congress specifically
set the law and policy the FCC is to enforce. So now, the FCC has been
granted the formal authority to implement these provisions. The only way
this could now be overturned is if the industry brought a suit claiming that
the new law is not constitutional. If they bring such a suit, it will cost a
huge amount of money, take many years to prosecute, and the suit would very
likely lose if it went all the way to the supreme court. In the meantime,
the FCC would be forcing the change anyway. I would be surprised if the
industry was willing to take it that far, especially since, the new law is
really quite limited only requiring 7 hours of prime time description per
week.
Plus, at the same time, the DOJ is really pushing ADA provisions in a broad
arena , so the regulatory landscape right now is very hostile to the
industry on this type of subject. Our culture is changing, and the industry
is fighting a losing battle.
HTH
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ilene Sirocca
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 5:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VICUG-L] Re Post on Improved Video Access
Sorry, a SNAFU with my previous message. I will try again.
The new act sounds great, but I wonder whether the networks will fight it as
they fought in the past. As I recall, they said compelling them to use
video description went against the first amendment, and they won. Assuming
the court has not changed enough to reverse this ruling, what about the
forthcoming law would prevent the same result? Does anyone know about this
from a legal standpoint? Or is my memory altogether faulty? Thanks.
Ilene
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
|
