Law Commons^™

Choosing Between The Necessity And Public Interest Standards In Fcc Review Of Media Ownership Rules, Peter Dicola

Michigan Law Review

Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, directs the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to review its media ownership rules every four years. But the statute contains an ambiguity regarding the standard of review that the FCC must apply during such proceedings. To retain a particular media ownership regulation, must the FCC merely show that the regulation advances one of the FCC's three public-interest goals for media: competition, diversity, and localism-applying a "public interest" standard? Or must the FCC meet the higher burden of demonstrating that the regulation is also indispensable for maintaining competition, diversity, or localism at …

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 …

Regulation Of Business - Antitrust Laws - Effect Upon A Subsequent Antitrust Suit Of Fcc Approval Of An Exchange Of Television Stations, John F. Powell S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

United States v. Radio Corporation of America-Creation of independent regulatory agencies presented the courts with the problem of allocating jurisdiction whenever the determination of proper judicial action was found to require the resolution of issues which an administrative agency was competent to resolve. To meet this problem the doctrine of "primary jurisdiction" was developed whereby administrative issues are to be decided by the agency prior to the court's determination of issues not within the realm of the agency. Application of the doctrine is based on the need for efficient and uniform agency regulation and the desirability of utilizing agency …

The Right Of Privacy, Louis Nizer

Michigan Law Review

It is only during the last half-century that the law has recognized the "right to be let alone"-the right under certain circumstances to protect one's name and physiognomy from becoming public property.

No mention of such a right will be found in the works of the great political philosophers and tract-writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries-Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, Spencer, Paine. In discoursing on "natural rights," "the state of nature," "social contract," and "the inalienable rights of man," they were concerned only with the power of the state to abridge the liberties of the people. Society had not yet …

Libel And Slander - Secondary Publication Of News Item Received From Reliable Agency, Collins E. Brooks

Michigan Law Review

Defendant published a news item to the effect that plaintiff had been adjudged guilty of "martial misconduct" in a divorce action. The information had been obtained from a reliable news agency, but was, in fact, false. Held, defendant was liable. The fact that the item was obtained from a reliable news-gathering agency, and published in good faith in the ordinary course of business, while sufficient to preclude the award of punitive damages, did not justify or excuse the publication, nor prevent the recovery of compensatory damages. Szalay v. New York American, Inc., (App. Div. 1938) 4 N. Y. …

Torts - Libel Per Se - Liability Of Newspaper For Republication

Michigan Law Review

A news item published in a newspaper owned by the .defendant stated falsely that the plaintiff was being held in jail on a charge of forgery. From a judgment for plaintiff the defendant appealed. Held, the defamatory statement was "libellous per se," and the defendant was liable though the information was received through a reliable news-gathering agency and was printed without malice. Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Givens, (C. C. A. 10th, 1933) 67 F. (2d) 62.