In the US, we are dangerously close to requiring indecency limitations on cable channels -- next will come calls to similarly regulate satellite, and eventually online streaming video, all in the name of maintaining a level regulatory playing field.  All of this is probably unconstitutional, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

(Recent joke:  Kevin Martin is so conservative that he wants to take the "F" out of "FCC".) 

In Europe, the Television Sans Frontieres initiative continues to steam along, with a new draft directive coming out from the Commission by the end of 2005.  Draft language from July 2005 read::

Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that audiovisual content services are not distributed in such a way that might seriously impair the physical, mental or moral development of minors.

In respect of non-linear audiovisual content services [e.g., streaming online video requested by users] Member States are encouraged to put in place systems of co-regulation or self-regulation as well [as] systems of filtering, age verification, labelling and classification of content.

It's not clear to me what the plan is for the end-of-December legislative draft, but I will wager that some restrictions on online video pronounced in the name of protecting children will be included ("in order to protect the public and to avoid the distortions of competition," in the words of a French official).  Mandated standards will likely be set by government, to be implemented by industry.

Migrating a Television Sans Frontieres-like regime (which includes rights of reply, advertising restrictions, and other elements as well as "protecting children") onto cable-satellite-internet in the US might have seemed unthinkable ten years ago.  But times have changed.

Many members of Congress think that pornography on the internet has to be regulated, and mere unconstitutionality probably isn't a good enough reason for them not to pass such laws.  And the FCC seems ready to break some kneecaps (= block some deals) in order to reach similar ends.

So here's what we need:  an idealistic, persuasive, charismatic, well-informed mogul of the First Amendment.  Someone who isn't conflicted by client representations or business interests.  Someone who can talk to the whole country about the importance of the free flow of speech online and off.  Someone who can lead.

Send word if you spot this person on the street or in a meeting.