Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
The problem with strict liability is that unknowing violations always get over-penalized, while knowing ones are under-penalized.
|
You're thinking about this the wrong way. "Strict liability" exists where it does not to punish negligence or intentional torts, but to properly allocate the cost associated with the risk of harm. It exists because the common law, in its wisdom, concluded that no amount of due care could necessarily avoid injury when engaging in a particular activity that could not be banned outright for economic reasons, such as dynamite blasting. It is unfair for person A to profit from dynamite blasting while person B bears the economic cost of lost limbs, notwithstanding person A's exercise of utmost care.
In the context of an FCC fine, the conclusion has been made that it is fair to impose on the broadcaster all burdens of avoiding the airing of inappropriate conduct, not because it's dangerous, but because Congress said so. To do otherwise would leave everyone with no incentives to avoid airing inappropriate content. A local station here just got hit with a massive fine for inadvertently airing a millisecond of penis when they did a story on the Puppetry of the Penis people. They bore the risk of putting Australians on live TV. It's only fair.
Threaded Mode