Communications Law Commons^™

Commentary On Adrian Cronauer's "The Fairness Doctrine", Robert P. Rhodes

Federal Communications Law Journal

Symposium: The Transformation of Television News

The First Amendment And The Protection Of Unfair Speech, Barbara Mcdowell

Federal Communications Law Journal

Symposium: The Transformation of Television News

The Fairness Doctrine: A Solution In Search Of A Problem, Adrian Cronauer

Federal Communications Law Journal

The "Fairness Doctrine" refers to a former policy of the Federal Communications Commission wherein a broadcast station which presented one viewpoint on a controversial public issue had to afford the opposing viewpoint an opportunity to be heard. The FCC ceased to enforce the doctrine in 1987, reasoning that the doctrine actually decreased the viewpoints heard by discouraging broadcasters from covering controversial issues out of fear of censure by the FCC. The Author explores the historical development of the Fairness Doctrine and examines the flaws with the different rationales upon which the doctrine is based. The Autho concludes that today's marketplace …

Fairness And The Public Trustee Concept: Time To Move On, Henry Geller

Federal Communications Law Journal

Symposium: The Transformation of Television News

A Critique Of An Illegal Conduct Limitation On The Reporters' Privilege Not To Testify, Leslie A. Warren

Federal Communications Law Journal

The First Amendment is commonly interpreted to allow reporters a qualified privilege not to testify. By compelling testimony only where the party requesting the information meets the elements of a three-part test, a court balances the interests of the requesting party with those of the reporter. The court in United States v. Sanusi applied this traditional test and found that the defendant met the elements. However, the court also added a new restriction on the privilege. This Note argues that the additional limitation, requiring that the court be confident that the privilege not be "justifying otherwise illegal conduct," is an …

A Law Antecedent And Paramount, Fred H. Cate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Krishna V. Lee Extricates The Inextricable: An Argument For Regulating The Solicitation In Charitable Solicitations, John Dziedzic

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that, in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, state and local regulations are more likely to pass federal constitutional muster if they regulate obnoxious fundraising practices defined with sufficient precision. The Riley trilogy and the continued existence of charitable solicitation scams have shown that attempting to prevent the "improper use of contributions intended for charitable purposes" by regulating how much charities pay for fundraising services has been not only unconstitutional but also ineffective. Part II is a brief review of the Riley trilogy, with an emphasis on the …

The Cable-Telco Cross-Ownership Prohibition: First Amendment Infringement Through Obsolescence, Michael G. Oxley

Federal Communications Law Journal

Since 1970, the FCC has prohibited all telephone companies from providing video programming in their local service areas. The primary rationale behind this prohibition was to promote the cable industry. Since 1984, however, the cable industry has seen tremendous growth with very little competition. New technology and market demands have now necessitated a reevaluation of the ban on cable-telco cross-ownership. The Author argues that with the changes that have occurred in the marketplace, the ban is now both an invalid prior restraint and an infringement on commercial expression and thus a violation of the First Amendment rights of telephone companies. …

The Cable Act And Municipal Ownership: A Growing First Amendment Confrontation, Carl R. Ramey

Federal Communications Law Journal

In many communities across the nation cable subscribers depend on government-owned cable television systems for their communication services. This phenomenon may have started out to be fairly insignificant, but as a result of the cable explosion, government ownership of cable systems presents a threat to free expression. Governmental overbuilding and direct competition with private cable service providers have been the subject of unsuccessful First Amendment challenges. The threat of government control of cable systems, though, is potentially dramatic and poses serious First Amendment questions. The Author concludes that private ownership should be encouraged, and public ownership should only be allowed …

The Pentagon Papers Case: Recovering Its Meaning Twenty Years Later, David Rudenstine

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Passive Communication In Public Fora: The Case For First Amendment Protection Of Newsracks, Sandra L. Cobden

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Myths And Misunderstandings, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article explores the utility of the Holmsean marketplace of ideas when considering the regulation of different forms of communication technology.

The First Amendment And The International "Free Flow" Of Information, Fred H. Cate

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Intellectual And Informational Property Rights: Panel Iv - Introduction: Property In Mass Media Law, Lee C. Bollinger

Faculty Scholarship

This is the panel on intellectual and informational property rights. As you can see, there are three panelists other than myself: Ed Kitch, Stephen Carter, and Frank Easterbrook.

I want to begin with just a few thoughts on an area that I know something about: press and media law. I would like to say two things about the notion of property and how it arises in the context of a few problems in the area of mass media law.

The Right To Speak, The Right To Hear, And The Right Not To Hear: The Technological Resolution To The Cable/Pornography Debate, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The advent of cable television presented a new opportunity to consider the competing interests on each side of the free speech/pornography debate. This Article attempts to construct an analysis that will be consistent with Supreme Court teaching on how government, under the first amendment, may constitutionally regulate legal obscenity, particularly in the name of protecting those who wish to avoid exposure to such material.

The Article shows how, unlike earlier battles over technology and pornography, cable television presented the novel opportunity to have a technological rather than a censorial solution to this difficult problem.

The First Amendment, Commercial Speech, And The Advertising Lawyer, Justice Vernon R. Pearson, Michael O'Neill

Seattle University Law Review

The Supreme Court, in a few cases scattered over several decades, has implied the existence of a public right to a free flow of information as one facet of the freedom of speech; yet the Court has refrained from specifically basing a decision on any such right. But with the recent line of commercial speech decisions, the concept-of a public right to a free flow of information has become firmly established and merits detailed examination. That right, and the rationale of the Court in its commercial speech cases, may have far ranging implications. This Article explores these implications in three …

The Supreme Court’S Public Forum Doctrine And The Return Of Formalism, Keith Werhan

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Electronic Publishing: First Amendment Issues In The Twenty-First Century, Lynn Becker

Fordham Urban Law Journal

In six sections, the author explores regulation of the then-emerging field of tele-communications, including electronic publishing, e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, teletype, and digital banking. Focusing on how the First Amendment applies to claims of defamation and obscenity made in an electronic format, the author proposes a unified regulatory scheme based on existing communications regulation law that will unify telecommunications policy countrywide. The first two sections are devoted to explanation of the then-novel forms of electronic communication and giving the history of the FCC and communications and data regulation in the US. The author describes the distinction between press regulation, broadcast …

Electrifying The First Amendment, Mark S. Nadel

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cable Television Monopoly And The First Amendment, Jordan S. Stanzler

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment And "Scalping" By A Financial Columnist: May A Newspaper Article Be Commercial Speech?, Bruce A. Kohn

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Metromedia, Inc. V. City Of San Diego: A Bifurcated Approach To Billboard Regulation And The First Amendment, Eric L. Rosedale

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Gurfein And The Pentagon Papers, James L. Oakes

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law - Free Press/Fair Trial - Pretrial Suppression Hearing May Be Closed In Order To Preserve Defendant's Right To A Fair Trial, Douglas Robison

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

The Constitutional Considerations Of Multiple Media Ownership Regulation By The Federal Communications Commission, Jon L. Mills, John Moynahan, Richard Perlini, George Mcclure

UF Law Faculty Publications

Promoting the dissemination of diverse ideas with a minimum of governmental interference is the goal of the first amendment in protecting free press and free media. This goal is implicit in the public interest mandate of the Communications Act of 1934. A precise balance between restraint and diversity in first amendment policy appears impossible, but the process of decision should reflect both, with deference to restraint where possible. The Federal Communication Commission's Order in Docket 18110 failed to strike such a balance; any future action regarding cross-ownership of broadcast stations by newspapers would benefit by an increased recognition of the …

Lectures On Communications Media Legal And Policy Problems, University Of Michigan Law School

Summer Institute on International and Comparative Law

Published under the auspices of the University of Michigan Law School (which, however, assumes no responsibility for the views expressed) with the aid of funds derived from gifts to the University of Michigan by William W. Cook