In addition to fines, violators of decency standards could be required to air public service announcements serving educational and informational needs of children.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Broadcasters have a responsibility to serve the public interest and protect Americans from objectionable content, particularly during the hours when children are likely to be watching.
Unfortunately, too many public school officials believe that cameras are needed to enforce order and discipline.
We will make the law clearer on parents' liability for failing to prevent their child being subjected to FGM, and we are working to improve the police response.
So, for example, if a child is labeled as having a learning disability, it has very concrete consequences for the kinds of services and potentially accommodations that child will get.
Usually when reporting on powerful public figures, the press advisor and I would have had a conversation that established what journalists call 'ground rules,' placing restrictions on what can and cannot be reported.
By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.
High-quality alternative educational settings should be available when students violate codes of conduct and need to be removed from the classroom while still maintaining access to instruction. And there must be social, health and psychological services to address students' needs.
For those broadcasters who are less than responsible, the FCC needs to have sharper teeth to enforce the law.
Any kind of restrictions put on free speech would have worse consequences than bullying.
We hope that the elected officials will respond positively to a ground swell of letters, phone calls, e-mails and visits from parents. The law clearly states that the responsibility for giving a sound basic education to our children lies with New York State.