Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (4)
- FCC (2)
- Federal Communications Commission (2)
- Antitrust Market (1)
- Arbitrary and Capricious (1)
-
- Artistic Freedom (1)
- Artistic Merit (1)
- Broadcast Language (1)
- Cable Television Consumer Protection Act of 1992 (1)
- Censorship (1)
- Decency and Respect (1)
- Do-Not-Call Registry (1)
- First Amendment Protection (1)
- Fox V. FCC (1)
- Freedom of the Press (1)
- Incorporation (1)
- Indecency Policy (1)
- Indecency Regulation (1)
- Indecent Speech (1)
- Karen Finley (1)
- Mainstream Marketing Services v. Fedral Trade Commission (1)
- Market Definition (1)
- Media Corporations (1)
- Media Coverage (1)
- Medium Specific Laws (1)
- Must-Carry Law (1)
- National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1)
- Near v. Minnesota (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Publicity-Seeking Crimes (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
"Fleeting Expletives" Are The Tip Of The Iceberg: Fallout From Exposing The Arbitrary And Capricious Nature Of Indecency Regulation, Dave E. Hutchinson
"Fleeting Expletives" Are The Tip Of The Iceberg: Fallout From Exposing The Arbitrary And Capricious Nature Of Indecency Regulation, Dave E. Hutchinson
Federal Communications Law Journal
On November 4, 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which centers on whether or the FCC's policy allowing fleeting expletives to be found actionably indecent is arbitrary and capricious. The Second Circuit found that the fleeting expletives policy is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of administrative law. The Supreme Court decision will provide much needed guidance for what constitutes a reasoned basis in the indecency regime's contextual approach. This Note argues that--despite the FCC's recognition that time and context changes the meaning of language-the FCC's indecency regime is at loggerheads with broadcasters because …
Leave Me Alone! The Delicate Balance Of Privacy And Commercial Speech In The Evolving Do-Not-Call Registry, Andrew L. Sullivant
Leave Me Alone! The Delicate Balance Of Privacy And Commercial Speech In The Evolving Do-Not-Call Registry, Andrew L. Sullivant
Federal Communications Law Journal
In 2004, the Tenth Circuit held that although the newly enacted do-not-call registry restricted commercial speech, the restriction was narrowly tailored and thus fell within the bounds of the Constitution. Since that decision, the Federal Trade Commission has amended the do-not-call registry to abolish the provision that required individuals to re-register every five years, and in 2008, Congress passed the amendment. This Note argues that the five-year reregistration requirement is a substantial factor in the registry's narrow tailoring. By removing the requirement, questions as to the restriction's constitutionality reemerge.
Performing Art: National Endowment For The Arts V. Finley, Randall P. Bezanson
Performing Art: National Endowment For The Arts V. Finley, Randall P. Bezanson
Federal Communications Law Journal
In this modified version of a chapter in his forthcoming book, ART AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH (Univ. of Illinois Press, 2008-09), Professor Bezanson begins to probe the nature of art and its relation to the first amendment free speech guarantee. The essay uses the Finley v. NEA case, and specifically its discussion of Finley's performance art, to critique the Supreme Court's very approach to the Finley case, and to view the issues from the perspective of art, artistic freedom, and the Supreme Court's role in fashioning constitutional protection for art as art, and not simply as cognitive speech.
The Terrorist Is A Star!: Regulating Media Coverage Of Publicity-Seeking Crimes, Michelle Ward Ghetti
The Terrorist Is A Star!: Regulating Media Coverage Of Publicity-Seeking Crimes, Michelle Ward Ghetti
Federal Communications Law Journal
Publicity-seeking crimes, including terrorism, almost by definition depend on the media for their effectiveness. Twenty-five years ago, when the bulk of this article was written, critics both within and outside the news industry had begun to voice an awareness, if not a concern, for the ease with which such criminals obtained publicity on both a national and international platform and it looked as if something might be done within the media establishments to thwart this manipulation of the press. Today, it is possible to look back and see that, in fact, nothing has been done and, so, individuals such as …
Antitrust Language Barriers: First Amendment Constraints On Defining An Antitrust Market By A Broadcast's Language, And Its Implications For Audiences, Competition, And Democracy, Catherine J.K. Sandoval
Antitrust Language Barriers: First Amendment Constraints On Defining An Antitrust Market By A Broadcast's Language, And Its Implications For Audiences, Competition, And Democracy, Catherine J.K. Sandoval
Federal Communications Law Journal
This Article explores whether the language of a broadcaster's program appropriately defines an antitrust market, consistent with First Amendment and antitrust principles. In its evaluation of the 2008 private equity buyout of Clear Channel Communications, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") defined the antitrust market by the language of the broadcast, as it had done for the 2003 merger of Univision and Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation. This Article uses social science research on Spanish and English-language radio and television to evaluate that decision. It argues that the distinct content and messages that characterize Spanish and English-language programming show that market definition is …
The Two-Step Evidentiary And Causation Quandary For Medium- Specific Laws Targeting Sexual And Violent Content: First Proving Harm And Injury To Silence Speech, Then Proving Redress And Rehabilitation Through Censorship, Clay Calvert
Federal Communications Law Journal
This Article argues that legislators today that want to suppress First Amendment-protected images of sexual and violent conduct conveyed on a specific medium face a steep two-step evidentiary burden. First, they must prove actual harm caused by the speech in question as it is conveyed on a specific medium--not the aggregate injury from viewing all media generallythat is sufficient to overcome free-speech rights. Second, even if sufficient harm from viewing violent or sexual content on a particular medium is proven by social science research, the government then must prove that its legislative remedy-its censorship of the harmful expression conveyed via …
The Colonel's Finest Campaign: Robert R. Mccormick And Near V. Minnesota, Eric B. Easton
The Colonel's Finest Campaign: Robert R. Mccormick And Near V. Minnesota, Eric B. Easton
Federal Communications Law Journal
Media corporations and their professional and trade associations, as well as organizations such as Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Civil Liberties Union, regularly monitor litigation that implicates First Amendment values and decide whether, when, and how to intervene. But that was not always the case. While media companies have always lobbied and litigated in support of their business interests-antitrust, copyright, postal rates, taxes-litigation by the institutional press to create or avoid doctrinal precedent under the First Amendment began only in the late 1920s. Once the United States Supreme Court recognized the incorporation of the First …
Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner
Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner
Federal Communications Law Journal
In recent decades, the must-carry rules have had a troubled constitutional history. After two sets of rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit for violating the First Amendment rights of both cable programmers and operators, Congress revised the must-carry rules in the 1992 Cable Act. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that the congressional must-carry law was facially constitutional. However, does the Turner II decision preclude further First Amendment challenges to the must-carry law? This Note argues that the answer is no and that the time is drawing near for new challenges.