Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Freedom of the press (2)
- Industries (2)
- Journalism (2)
- Mass media (2)
- Regulation (2)
-
- Television (2)
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Antitrust (1)
- Broadcast media (1)
- Cable news (1)
- Cable television (1)
- Colleges and universities (1)
- Competition (1)
- Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing (1)
- Damages (1)
- Defamation (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Expression of opinion (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Federal Communications Commission (1)
- Federal agencies (1)
- Freedom of expression (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch (1)
- Incentives (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Libel per quod (1)
- Libel per se (1)
- Media law (1)
- Milkovich v. Lorain Journal (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unfit For Prime Time: Why Cable Television Regulations Cannot Perform Trinko's 'Antitrust Function', Keith Klovers
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.
Purpose And Effects: Viewpoint-Discriminatory Closure Of A Designated Public Forum, Kerry L. Monroe
Purpose And Effects: Viewpoint-Discriminatory Closure Of A Designated Public Forum, Kerry L. Monroe
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In early 2010, amidst a series of racially charged incidents on campus, the student government president at the University of California at San Diego revoked funding to all student media organizations in response to controversial speech on the student-run television station. It is well established that once the government has opened a forum, including a "metaphysical" forum constituted by government funding for private speech, it may not discriminate based on the viewpoints expressed within that forum. However, it has not been clearly established whether the government may close such a forum for a viewpoint-discriminatory purpose. This Note argues that courts …
The Journalism Ratings Board: An Incentive-Based Approach To Cable News Accountability, Andrew Selbst
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.
Opinions, Implications, And Confusions, Leonard M. Niehoff
Opinions, Implications, And Confusions, Leonard M. Niehoff
Articles
The law of defamation is haunted by ancient common law principles, such as the distinction between libel per se and libel per quad, that contribute nothing to our current jurisprudence beyond providing opportunities for misunderstanding and perplexity. Unfortunately, more contemporary doctrines have further complicated the field by sowing fresh confusions. This article explores two such doctrines-the principle that a defamation claim cannot rest upon an opinion and the principle that a defamation claim can rest upon unstated implications- and suggests that there are troublesome contradictions both within them and between them. In short, this article respectfully proposes that these two …