Law Commons^™

Broadcast In The Past?: The Dangers Of Deregulating Children’S Broadcast Television, Lauren Bashir

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This article will begin by providing an overview of the Federal Communications Commission’s role in regulating broadcast television. In Section II, this article will explain in depth how the FCC has placed limitations on the type of content and circumstances under which television stations can broadcast content. This discussion will lead into the Children’s Television Act (CTA) of 1990 and the regulation of children’s television—also known as the KidVid Rules. After providing some background on the creation of the CTA and its effectiveness up to recent times, Section III will dive deeper into the 2019 CTA modifications. Then this article …

Blind Spot: The Attention Economy And The Law, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

Human attention, valuable and limited in supply, is a resource. It has become commonplace, especially in the media and technology industries, to speak of an "attention economy" and of competition in "attention markets.” There is even an attentional currency, the "basic attention token," which purports to serve as a medium of exchange for user attention. Firms like Facebook and Google, which have emerged as two of the most important firms in the global economy, depend nearly exclusively on attention markets as a business model.

Yet despite the well-recognized commercial importance of attention markets, antitrust and consumer protection authorities have struggled …

European Unification - Broadcasting Law - Eastern Europe And The "Television Without Frontiers" Directive: Radio Freed Europe - Can Television Unify It?, Christopher B. Scott

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Political Campaigning And The Airways, Harrop Freeman, Stewart Edelstein

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Detailed Of An Explanation Is Required When An Administrative Agency Changes An Existing Policy? Implications And Analysis Of Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Inc. On Administrative Law Making And Television Broadcasters, David Lee

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

“Smut And Nothing But”: The Fcc, Indecency, And Regulatory Transformations In The Shadows, Lili Levi

Lili Levi

For almost a century, American broadcasting has received a lesser degree of constitutional protection than the print medium. Although many of the FCC’s regulations in “the public interest” have been upheld against First Amendment challenge on the ground that broadcasting is exceptional, the traditional reasons given for such exceptionalism – scarcity and pervasiveness – have become increasingly careworn. Fighting that consensus, the FCC has aggressively pursued the regulation of indecency on radio and television since 2003. When the FCC’s enhanced indecency prohibitions swept up U2 front-man Bono’s fleeting expletive on a music awards show, broadcasters finally thought they had found …

National Subscription Television V. S & H, Tv: The Problem Of Unauthorized Interception Of Subscription Television—Are The Legal Airwaves Unscrambled?, Thomas R. Catanese

Pepperdine Law Review

The unending stream of technological innovations that best exemplifies the electronic media has left the law in its wake. Because of rapid advancements in the forms communications may take, the law has sometimes been slow in effectively and rationally affording protection against the piracy of these new types of electronic media. One such type of electronic media is the transmission of over-the-air scrambled broadcasts, more properly "subscription" television, wherein a party pays a subscription fee to receive nonstandard television programming. National Subscription Television v. S & H, TV, in view of prior divided case law, settled the question of whether …

Unfit For Prime Time: Why Cable Television Regulations Cannot Perform Trinko's 'Antitrust Function', Keith Klovers

Michigan Law Review

Until recently, regulation and antitrust law operated in tandem to safeguard competition in regulated industries. In three recent decisions-Trinko, Credit Suisse, and Linkline-the Supreme Court limited the operation of the antitrust laws when regulation "performs the antitrust function." This Note argues that cable programming regulations-which are in some respects factually similar to the telecommunications regulations at issue in Trinko and Linkline-do not perform the antitrust function because they cannot deter anticompetitive conduct. As a result, Trinko and its siblings should not foreclose antitrust claims for damages that arise out of certain cable programming disputes.

The Journalism Ratings Board: An Incentive-Based Approach To Cable News Accountability, Andrew Selbst

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The American establishment media is in crisis. With newsmakers primarily driven by profit, sensationalism and partisanship shape news coverage at the expense of information necessary for effective self-government. Focused on cable news in particular this Note proposes a Journalism Ratings Board to periodically rate news programs based on principles of good journalism. The Board will publish periodic reports and display the news programs' ratings during the programs themselves, similar to parental guidelines for entertainment programs. In a political and legal climate hostile to command-and-control regulation, such an incentive-based approach will help cable news fulfill the democratic function of the press.

Comcast/Nbcu: The Fcc Provides A Roadmap For Vertical Merger Analysis, Jonathan Baker

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The FCC’s analysis of the Comcast-NBCU transaction fills a gap in the contemporary treatment of vertical mergers by providing a roadmap for courts and litigants addressing the possibility of anticompetitive exclusion. The FCC identified the factors any judicial or administrative tribunal would likely consider today in analyzing whether a vertical merger would lead to anticompetitive input or customer foreclosure, and a range of economic methods potentially relevant to applying that template to the facts of a transaction. Notwithstanding the difference between administrative adjudication under a public interest standard and judicial decision-making under the Clayton Act, the legal framework and economic …

Toward A Broadband Public Interest Standard, Anthony E. Varona

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

Although they emerged seven decades apart, commercial broadcasting and the Internet were greeted with similar excited declarations of their potential to transform American democracy by hosting an electronic free marketplace of ideas that would inform and enlighten citizens and catalyze discussion on issues of public importance. The federal government played a central role in the initial development and proliferation of both technologies, but then assumed very different regulatory orientations to the two industries once they were commercialized. In broadcasting, the government took on an interventionist posture promoting civic republican First Amendment values by means of a variety of public interest …

Expansion Of Indecency Regulation: Presented By The Federalist Society's Telecommunications Practice Group, Kevin J. Martin, Adam G. Ciongoli, Robert W. Peters, Roger Pilon, David B. Sentelle

Federal Communications Law Journal

This is a transcript of the November 10, 2005, panel discussion at the National Lawyer's Convention presented by the Federalist Society's Telecommunications Practice Group. The panelists debate and discuss the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") regulation of indecent content.

C-Span's Long And Winding Road To A Still Un-Televised Supreme Court, Bruce D. Collins

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In 2005 when Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) first proposed legislation requiring the Supreme Court of the United States to televise its oral arguments, he resuscitated a twenty-plus-years long effort by several news organizations to achieve the same goal. For at least that long, C-SPAN has been ready to provide the same kind of video coverage of the federal judiciary as it has been providing of the Congress and the president. If cameras are ever permitted in the high Court’s chamber, C-SPAN will televise every minute of every oral argument, frequently on a live basis, and will do so in its …

Will It Make My Job Easier, Or What's In It For Me?, Kenneth N. Flaxman

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Putting aside philosophical questions about public access to government proceedings—what we now call “transparency”—and without regard to whether televising Supreme Court arguments is a logical extension of the common law’s “absolute personal right of reasonable access to court files” as described in 1977 by the Seventh Circuit in Rush v. United States, my real concern about whether Supreme Court arguments should be televised is somewhat narcissistic. Will it make my job—as a plaintiff’s civil rights lawyer who dabbles in criminal defense and post-conviction matters and who has had five adventures as “arguing counsel” in the Supreme Court—easier? I explain below …

Constitutional Etiquette And The Fate Of "Supreme Court Tv", Bruce Peabody

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

In traditional media outlets, on the Internet, and throughout the halls of Congress, debate about whether the Supreme Court should be required to televise its public proceedings is becoming more audible and focused. To date, these discussions have included such topics as the potential effects of broadcasting the Court, the constitutionality of Senator Arlen Specter’s current congressional initiative, S. 344, and how the public would use or abuse televised sessions of our highest tribunal.

The Right Legislation For The Wrong Reasons, Tony Mauro

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Senator Arlen Specter took a bold and long-overdue step on January 22, 2007, when he introduced legislation that would require the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of its proceedings. But instead of making his case with a straightforward appeal to the public’s right to know, Specter has introduced arguments in favor of his bill that seem destined to antagonize the Court, drive it into the shadows, or both. Chances of passage might improve if Specter adjusts his tactics.

Gee Whiz, The Sky Is Falling!, Boyce F. Martin Jr.

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

I am reminded of Chicken Little’s famous mantra as I listen to some Supreme Court Justices’ reactions to the prospect of televising oral arguments. Their fears—such as Justice Kennedy’s warning that allowing cameras in the courtroom may change the Court’s dynamics—are, in my opinion, overblown. And some comments, most notably Justice Souter’s famous exclamation in a 1996 House subcommittee hearing that “the day you see a camera come into our courtroom, it’s going to roll over my dead body,” make it sound as if the Justices have forgotten that our nation’s court system belongs to the public, not merely the …

Granting Certiorari To Video Recording But Not To Televising, Scott C. Wilcox

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Cameras are an understandable yet inapt target for Supreme Court Justices apprehensive about televising the high Court’s proceedings. Notwithstanding Justice Souter’s declaration to a congressional subcommittee in 1996 that cameras will have to roll over his dead body to enter the Court, the Justices’ public statements suggest that their objections are to televising—not to cameras. In fact, welcoming cameras to video record Court proceedings for archival purposes will serve the Justices’ interests well. Video recording can forestall legislation recently introduced in both houses of Congress that would require the Court to televise its proceedings. The Court’s desired result—the legislation disappearing …

Out Of Thin Air: Using First Amendment Public Forum Analysis To Redeem American Broadcasting Regulation, Anthony E. Varona

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

American television and radio broadcasters are uniquely privileged among Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensees. Exalted as public trustees by the 1934 Communications Act, broadcasters pay virtually nothing for the use of their channels of public radiofrequency spectrum, unlike many other FCC licensees who have paid billions of dollars for similar digital spectrum. Congress envisioned a social contract of sorts between broadcast licensees and the communities they served. In exchange for their free licenses, broadcast stations were charged with providing a platform for a "free marketplace of ideas" that would cultivate a democratically engaged and enlightened citizenry through the broadcasting of …

Sailing Toward Safe Harbor Hours: The Constitutionality Of Regulating Television Violence, Eric C. Chaffee

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Because of the recent focus on television violence, it is more a question of "when," rather than "if," Congress will take action on this issue. "Safe harbor" regulation, or restricting violent programming to certain hours of the day, is one form of regulation that is recurrently suggested as a means for dealing with the potential ills created by television violence. The possibility of such regulation implicates numerous constitutional issues. This Article addresses whether "safe harbor" regulation of television violence is feasible without violating the First Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution.

Talk Show Torts Turn Deaf Ear To Plaintiffs, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Television And The Public Interest, Newton N. Minow

Federal Communications Law Journal

Speech Before the National Association of Broadcasters (May 9, 1961).

The Role Of The Federal Communications Commission On The Path From The Vast Wasteland To The Fertile Plain, Kathleen Q. Abernathy

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Revisiting The Vast Wasteland, Newton N. Minow, Fred H. Cate

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Minow’S Viewers: Understanding The Response To The “Vast Wasteland” Address, James L. Baughman

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Forty Years Of Wandering In The Wasteland, Nicholas Johnson

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

How Do We Make Goodness Attractive?, Fred Rogers

Federal Communications Law Journal

Speech at Induction into the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Television Hall of Fame (Feb. 27, 1999). During his career, Rogers received two Peabody Awards, four Emmy Awards, a “Lifetime Achievement” Award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest honor for a civilian.

A Diversity Of Voices In A “Vast Wasteland”, Condace L. Pressley

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Manhattan, Cass R. Sunstein

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Measuring Quality Television, Russ Taylor

Federal Communications Law Journal

No abstract provided.