Andrew, you are right that Martin could be accused of a power grab for suggesting that federal regulators should have some reign over cable and satellite television, which is not exactly foreseen in the Communications Act of 1934. But almost all American homes today have cable or satellite TV, so it sounds a little tinny to be concerned about the TV the kiddies watch, and then confine your concern to just six or seven over-the-air broadcast networks.

It made more sense to tell parents to just turn the TV off when there was three choices. But now that there’s 103, it’s a little tougher. Cable has helped bring more indecency to television in two opposing ways. The critical acclaim and popular success of envelope-pushing cable fare (especially on HBO, then on to the “free” cable channels) has made the broadcast networks jealous to push the same envelopes and get the same financial and critical payoff. Plus the rise of niche programming (especially for kids) has made it safer for broadcasters to tart it up without parental complaints. (In my house, my kids are routinely stuck on Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and Disney, so there’s not as much worry about what they’ll see.) Libertarians ought to embrace the “a la carte” option as a way to both please consumers and stave off federal cable regulation.