Philadelphia Community Access Coalition
				Home | About | Join | Act | Contact | Search | News | Calendar

MR. HORWOOD: Yes, I'm Jim Horwood. I'm a partner in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Spiegel & McDermott where I head the firm's telecommunications practice.

Most of our practice is representing local governments and a number of matters including communications, cable television issues. We also provide advice to communities that manage community access centers, like Manhattan, although Manhattan's not one of our clients.

I have been involved with the Alliance for Community Media since 1984 and have served on the Board of Directors of the Alliance since 1990 as a special appointee for legal affairs. I got involved with the Alliance and Access initially 'cause I'm a first amendment romantic, and I believe that, you know, having a forum for all people to speak, particularly on a scarce resource, is very important, and that's something that was envisioned starting in the '60s, when public access first came into being in some communities.

And it's eloquently spelled out in the legislative history that Congress developed when it passed the 1984 Cable Act. It refers there in the material I quoted that public access channels are often the video equipment of the speaker's soap box or the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who generally have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become sources of information in the electronic marketplace of ideas.

And I think that's kind of the start. And as I've gotten involved with the Alliance, I've seen that public access really provides a lot more because it's a forum for community organizations, for social service organizations, some of the kinds of things that Tony Riddle was talking about and Bunnie Riedel talked about, and you've got it in the package that she handed out on how not only does public access serve individuals who want to speak, but it also serves organizations within the community.

There's a bad rap on public access, and there are three reasons for it. one, you know, nobody watches it; second, it's filled with hate speech; and third, that it carries pornographic or sexually offensive material. You know, all three statements are true but to a very minimal extent. And, you know, the fact is, this isn't something that you want Nielson ratings for 'cause you're trying to reach targeted groups within the community to allow people to speak.

I'm kind of blown away at looking at the group here this afternoon. It's really quite an outpouring of the people who are dedicated and interested. The skit you had at the beginning was fantastic. And as I look around the room, I don't see anybody who I think goes to meetings wearing white sheets and hoods or carries banners with swastikas or would get on television and take his or her clothes off. You know, that's not what public access is about anyplace else, and there's no reason to believe it will be about that here. You may have somebody tending to push the envelope.

But I remember somebody commenting when the Klan was trying to put on access channels in a few communities that -- the Klan doesn't want to be on public access; they want to be kept off public access because they kind of wanted the publicity. And it's kind of hard to put it this way but in places where you've had hate speech, it's turned out almost invariably to be a very enriching experience for the community, because, you know, what communities have done is, they've encourage counterprogramming and, you know, good programming, and they've brought hate speech out into the open.

And I think in this age where there's a lot of hate going on via the Internet, you know, maybe getting it on television is the best place where you can expose it to the light of day and talk about it and, you know, show why these views are wrong. What's happened in some places is -- in a number of places is a counterprogramming stayed on and the Klan went away, and I don't hear much these days about the Klan or race or reason 'cause they kind of lost it as a vehicle and maybe they've moved to using the Internet more, which, in some sense, may be more dangerous.

There is a wonderful report that was issued back in December of 1993 by the National Telecommunications Information Administration, which is a part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. Congress had asked them to do a study on the role of telecommunications and hate programs. And they put out this study after receiving comments and studying the matter. And in my prepared statement, I've quoted some material there.

And the conclusion is, there really is no connection between telecommunications and hate crimes. They found one instance that had happened and they found that there was really no connection when you dealt with public access. And they really talk about, you know, the traditional first amendment value, that the way to deal with bad speech is by countering it with good speech. And, you know, in the end, the good speech is going to prevail. And I think that's a lesson that people have learned elsewhere. And I hate to see a city, you know --

COUNCILMAN COHEN: Well, I don't think anybody in Philadelphia takes seriously the statements made by the mayor's representative as being the real reasons for public access being denied.

(Applause.)

MR. HORWOOD: The other matter is programming that's sexually explicit. In the first place, programming that's obscene is unlawful and can be punished. In 1992, Congress passed a statute that told the Federal Communication Commission to establish regulations by which cable operators could keep off indecent programming from public access channels.

The Alliance and others challenged that as unconstitutional because in decent programming which falls short of something that's legally obscene, you know, can often be valuable, and you're really violating the first-amendment rights of speakers.

There's also a provision in that act, that least access, which is a channel that's available for hire, which cable operators could keep indecent programming off of those channels.

The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the provision on leased access and overturned as unconstitutional the provision as it related to public access, saying, you know, it's not a problem, there are first-amendment values here. And probably most importantly, they say that locally accountable bodies which manage public access are able to deal with these problems.

There are techniques to keep under control the offensive programming. It can be time-channelled to late-evening hours if programming has an adult content. If, you know, somebody has crossed over the line, then that programmer can have his programming privileges suspended.

COUNCILMAN COHEN: We thank you, we thank you.

Mr. Haas, we've been told you have joined the panel.

Previous (ANNE SHEEHAN)

Index of All Testifiers

Next (DAVID HAAS)