Media Law: Exam 3

Front 1

S.H.A.R.K. v. Metro Parks, Serving Summit County

Back 1

S.H.A.R.K, an animal rights group sought to document what they feared would be cruel practices in an Ohio park's use of expert marksmen to cull a local deer overpopulation. The group hid video cameras in the park during evening hours when the area was closed to the public. But the cameras must not have been hidden very well, b/c the park's rangers stumbled upon them in the course of their workday. When the rangers confiscated the cameras, the animal rights group sued, alleging a Privacy Protection Act violation. The federal district court held the act wholly inapplicable b/c the rangers' having inadvertently found the cameras did not constitute a search, nor was it part of law enforcement activity.

Front 2

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition

Back 2

In 2002, The S.C. struck down the "virtual porn" portions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, which would have criminalized the production, distribution, and possession of images that even appear to depict children engaged in sexual acts. The law was so broad, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority, that it would seem to outlaw such popular films as American Beauty and Traffic, both of which included scenes with minors appearing to have sex. Even some film versions of Romeo and Juliet could have been banned, he added/

Front 3

V-Chip

Back 3

The FCC has adopted rules requiring all television sets with picture screens 33 centimeters (13 inches) or larger to be equipped with features to block the display of television programming based upon its rating. This technology is known as the "V-Chip." The V-Chip reads information encoded in the rated program and blocks programs from the set based upon the rating selected by the parent.

Front 4

Retransmission consent

Back 4

Permission granted by a broadcaster to a cable or satellity TV company to include the broadcaster's signal among the cable (or satellity TV) company's offerings to subscribers.
(Upheld by S.C. in 1997: Turner Broadcasting v. FCC)

Front 5

Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Back 5

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, created the CPB as the system's funding mechanism. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 gives the CPB responsibilty for maintaining "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature." No such restrictions are imposed on commercial broadcasters. The law also dictates the manner in which the corporation's board of directors will be appointed

Front 6

Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance on the Tonight Show

Back 6

News interview programs are exempt to the Equal-Time Rule if they are regularly scheduled programs, rather than ad hoc "meet the candidates" events. Only part of which involve the host interviewing political figures have also been exempted from section 315. It was no surprise when the FCC, less than two weeks before the 2006 election, dismissed California gubernatorial candidate PHil Angelide's complaint stemming from Arnold Schwarzenegger's appearance on The Tonight Show. Angelides complained about the free publicity given to his opponent's reelection bid by that Tonight Show appearance. He had a plausible (though ultimately unsuccessful) legal argument, one that he never would have had it, if it were print media that had invited Schwarzenegger but not his challenger to meet them b/c broadcast media are subject to regulations not applicable to print media.

Front 7

Financing for PBC and NPR

Back 7

Do not use "advertisers" on PBS and NPR but instead use "underwriters." Messages alerting us as to which individuals, foundations, or corporations have underwritten a program may resemble commercials in some ways, but the legally prescribed purpose of these messages is to inform viewers, not persuade them

Front 8

The Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990

Back 8

(TDCA) Millions of Americans have limited visual or auditory acuity. They may have been born deaf or hard of hearing, or blind, or they may have lost some of their sense modalities with age. In recent years Congress has intervened to ensure that television programming is as accessible as practicable to all. The TDCA of 1990 mandated that as of July 1, 1993, all TV sets with thirteen-inch or larger screens would have to be capable of receiving closed-captioning signals. Although the most obvious market for the service is persons who are deaf and hard of hearing, the technology can also benefit other identifible groups, such as children learning to read and adults learning English as a second language. It is also useful in commercial establishments such as bars and health clubs

Front 9

"The Vast Wasteland"

Back 9

A famous speech given in 1961 by former FCC chairman Newton Minow about his dismay at the state of children's TV. This speech has brought attention to the the concerns about the effects of the electronic media on children and the need for broadcast regulations

Front 10

Judith Miller - Scooter LIbby - Joseph Wilson - Valerie Plame

Back 10

Judith MIller, a New York TImes reporter, was imprisoned for three months in 2005 for failing to reveal her confidential sources related to a story she never even wrote. But newspaper columnisy and frequent TV pundit Robert Novak did write the story, two years earlier, in which he cited 'two senior administration officials" in revealing that Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson, was a CIA operative. In 2006 Novak revealed that presidental adviser Karl Rove was one of his sources for the Plame story. Numerous Washington insiders have suggested that Rove may have intended to retaliate against Wilson for his public statements contradicting the Bush administration's insistence that Saddam Hussein had obtained materials from the African nation of NIger that could assist him in making nuclear weapons. Whereas Novak apparently cooperated with the grand jury investigating the Plame leak, Judith MIller and Time magazine reporter Matther Cooper were held in contempt for refusing to cooperate, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contemp citation. Unlike Miller, Cooper avoided jail time b/c his source (also Karl Rove) released him from his promise of confidentiality, allowing him and the magazine to obey Judge Thomas Hogan's orders to testify. Only after Judith MIller served eight-five days in jail did her source, former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" LIbby, release her from her promise of confidentiality, paving the way for her release. LIbby himself, of course, was convicted in 2007 on perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Plame Leak

Front 11

Vanessa Leggett

Back 11

A part-time college teacher in Texas who had been conducting research for a book about the murder of Houston-area socialite Doris Angleton. The federal grand jury subpoenaed notes from Leggett, who had conducted interviews with Roger Angleton. She argued that the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution together create a strong enough reporters' shield to protect her from beig forced to produce her notes or testify in front of the grand jury. Federal judge Melinda Harmon held Leggett in contempt of court, and the Firth Circuit Court of Apeals, in an unpupblished opinion, upheld the citation. The S.C. later denied review. Leggett was sent to jail where she spent 168 days. Finally, almost half a year later, in an unpublished opinion from 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals skirted the issue of where Leggett should be considered a journalist for purposes of applying whatever reporters' privilege is found in the Branzberg precedent. The appellate panel deemed it unnessary to decide this question, b/c the fact that a grand jury was the entity seeking disclosrue would outweigh whatever privilege might exist. Still, the judges went out of their way to describe Leggett as a "virtually unpublished freelance writer, operating without an employer or a contract for publication," thus hinting that the determination of whether the reporters' privilege applied to her likely would have focused on whether her ultimate goal while she was collecting information about the underlying homicide case was to publicly disseminate such information

Front 12

Dary Matera

Back 12

Often the question of whether freelance writers are protected is not spelled out clearly in the statute (Branzberg) itself, requiring state courts to weigh in with their interpretations of the law's wording. An appellate court in Arizona refused to apply its shield law to author Dary Matera, who at the time was writing a book about undercover "sting" operations that had resulted in the prosecution of several state officials. One of those state officilals subpoenaed Matera for materials he thought would help him in preparing his defense. Although the statute was worded broadly, the court noted that Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary defined "news" as "material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast." Matera's motion to quash the subpoena was thus denied

Front 13

Branzburg v. Hayes

Back 13

In Branzburg v. Hayes, the S.C. held that even if reporters do enjoy First Amendment protection, their claims must yield to the need of grand juries investigating criminal wrongdoing. States wishing to compel reporter testimony must prove that (1) there is a probable cause to believe that the reporter possesses information relevant to a criminal investigation; (2) the government has a compelling need for this information (i.e., its disclosure or nondisclosure will likely affect the outcome of the case); and (3) the reporter is the only identifiable source of the needed information

Front 14

Racketeering Statutes

Back 14

The federal Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) was enacted in 1970 as a way of curtailing the influence of organized crim on otherwise legitimate business. Today, RICO is used against many different kinds of activities that at first blush might not seem the stuff to the Mafia. RICO and other similar statutes are worded and interpreted broadly enought to reach even relatively mainstream publishers and bookstores. All that is usually required to obtain a conviction is to show that the accused has sold obscene materials at least two times over a ten-year period. A racketeering conviction can result in a twenty-year jail sentence and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Not only can the defendent's place of business and entire inventory be seized, but the seizure might extend to personal property such as a place of residence

Front 15

PEG

Back 15

Cities cannot dictate that the local cable system carry any specific network, although it can require that cable systems carry certain broad categories of programming, including public-access, educational, and government channels, sometimes "PEG" for short.
Ex. C-SPAN and channels that carry the state legislature and the local city and county governmental bodies

Front 16

Model Ordinance Prepared by Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon

Back 16

(1980s) American Booksellers v. Hudnut: Two feminists tried to take a novel approach to sexually explicit communications. The ordinance sought to define pornography rather than obscenity as a legal construct. It provided for civil actions rather than criminal prosecutions; desire for equal rights over fostering the traditional view of morality. The women argued that pornography harmed women in several ways, including contributing to misogyny, and criminal acts toward women. The city council initially passed the model ordinance, but the Bookseller organization goes to court with the ordinance, arguing that the ordinance is unconstitutional, although many community members rallied behind it. When the cast goes to trial, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognizes that the ordinance has moral merit, but finally held the statute unconstitutional. The court ruled for the American Booksellers, emphasizing that the women appearing in the videos were consenting adults. The statute also lacked many of the constitutional protections provided under the Miller Test because some of the publications served as literary, or artistic value to society. Also, the ordinance offered a narrow scope and did not consider the works as a whole

Front 17

Branzburg v. Hayes

Back 17

In the case of Branzburg v. Hayes, Branzburg was a reporter who wrote a story on drug trafficking and was asked by the police to reveal his confidential sources. Because his confidential sources were possible drug dealers, police officers, or family members of those involved in drug trafficking, Branzburge refused to reveal the names of his sources. The police argued the right to everyman's evidence because journalists are no different than other citizens and the information is necessary in conducting a fair trial. When the case was heard in court the Justices decisions were fractured but eventually they ruled that Branzburg should be forced to reveal his sources. Justice Stewart's Three-Part Test stated that a reporter had to reveal his sources if the information is linked to criminal evidence, if the information is of high importance, and if there is no alternative to gather the evidence. The court found that Branzburg must reveal his sources, 5-4.

Front 18

FCC v. Red Lion Broadcasting

Back 18

In the case of FCC v. Red Lion Broadcasting, Reverend Billy Hargis preached on the radio about an author who he believed to be linked to the communist party. The author argued that the statements of Hargis were invalid and wanted to give his side of the story on the radio station, under the Fairness Doctrine which states that both sides of the story must be given a chance to be aired on the public airwaves. The radio station refused to let the author be heard and the case went to court. At the trial, the court ruled in favor of the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine, upholding the personal attack rule, which states that the opposing side of the story must have a chance to be heard. While the Rev. Hargis and Red Lion Broadcasting were not happy with the ruling, they had to comply with FCC standards or their licence would have been revoked.

Front 19

Justice Stewart's 3-Part Test

Back 19

The 3-part Test devised by Justice Stewart plays a role in the revelation of confidential sources and states that a subpoenaed reporter must reveal his or her sources if:
1. There is a probable cause to believe that the reporter has pertinent information relating to a specific crime
2. There is no other alternative to obtaining the information
3. The information is highly significant and important

Front 20

Right to Search Reporter Phone Records

Back 20

ATT v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Government obtained phone records from ATT in order to pinpoint the number of the confidential sources; the press was unreasonable to search and seizure; the press loses but the justice department gives guidelines for future cases:
1. No phone record will be obtained without discussing it with the journalists beforehand
2. No informational will be seized unless it's extremely important
3. Records will only be seized if there are no alternatives
4. Only the least amount of information necessary will be taken
5. Information will only be seized with the Attorney General's permission who will probably run it by the President

Front 21

Contemporary Local Standards

Back 21

Whereas the Roth Test was nationally focused, local standards are applied to the first section of the Miller Test. This section states that material that may be considered obscene or offensive is applied to local community standards, meaning material considered obscene in Tupelo, Mississippi may not be considered obscene in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Front 22

The Military Honor and Decency Act

Back 22

Because of the case, MEDIA General v. Cohn, Cohn, the Secretary of Defense for Bill Clinton prohibited the sale of sexually explicit material on military bases. The Military Honor and Decency Act states that no indecent material may be sold on military bases, however military personal are not prohibited from bringing indecent material onto the base. The act was put into place to uphold the honor of the military

Front 23

The Safe Harbor Act

Back 23

A federal ordinance that allow indecent content to be broadcast over the radio only between the hours of 10:00pm to 6:00am. This prevents most children from being subjected to indecent content but allows the public airwaves to exercise First Amendment rights to Freedom of Speech
Ex. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation: Pacifica, a radio station, wanted to explore language analysis by airing George Karlan's tape of the "7 Dirty Words." The station gets complaints because it was aired during prime-time listening hours. The station said they put a disclaimer on the tape warning people who might be offended, but the court ruled in favor of the FCC, stating that disclaimers do not work on the radio airwaves because people can tune in at any point in time and might miss the disclaimer, the radio is accessible to children, and in public places.

Front 24

Ginsberg v. New York

Back 24

A local shop owner sold an indecent publication magazine to a 16-year old boy. The court ruled that while the magazine was not considered obscene for an adult, the concept of variable obscenity applied here because the material is considered obscene when in the hands of a minor. The court ruled against Ginsberg and made convenience store owners nationwide aware of the consequences of selling these publications to minors

Front 25

Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes

Back 25

Ralph Forbes was a third-party candidate in Arkansas and argued the Equal Access Rule when he did not receive equal air time on the local networks in relation to the Republican and Democratic candidates. Forbes argued that he should be featured in the candidate debate, but the State ruled against him for two reasons. First, Forbes had very slim chance of winning the election. Second, the network didn't have enough air time to allot to Forbes. The court found that the network was not practicing favoritism and ruled against Forbes

Front 26

"Must Carry"

Back 26

The "Must-Carry" rule stems from the ordinance that a cable operator must carry a set number of local, public broadcasts. In Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, the FCC argued that the cable companies had a social responsibility to carry local network affiliate stations because local affiliates would go bankrupt if cable dominated the TV airways. Although the cable and satellite companies argued that the "must carry" rule did not comply with the marketplace of ideas the result ended in the cable companies being required to carry 12 public broadcasting stations to local audiences.

Front 27

3-Part Test for Living up to a Promise

Back 27

Must follow 3 rules; if any are broken, source may file for a breach in confidentiality suit:
1. A clear and definite promise was made
2. Without the promise of confidentiality, the source would not have given the information in the 1st place
3. Damage suffered as a result
Ex. Cohen v. Cowles publishing: Cohen, who was associated with the Republican party, revealed the two arrests of the Democratic candidate after being promised by the journalist that Cohen's name would be kept a secret. When the paper revealed his name, Cohen lost his job because the Republican party said Cohen was not authorized to give this information. The Supreme Court eventually voted in favor of Cohen after applying the 3-part test.

Front 28

Wheeler v. Goulart

Back 28

"Aftermath of Branzburg": Wheeler, a reporter at the Washington Post, is told about a raid the police planned ("glory + story"). The police invite Wheeler along but did not find the evidence they were looking for. Because the police did not get the story, they decide to make a judge subpoena Wheeler to reveal the source who told her about the raid b/c they figured that the raid was unsuccessful b/c other people must have found out about it too from the same source. The Court also subpoenaed Wheeler's husband to see if they could get the information from him. Wheeler was held in contempt. She should not have told he spouse about the confidential information

Front 29

Morejon v. Miami Herald

Back 29

"Aftermath of Branzburg": Herald wants to do a story on security at the airport. The police make an arrest for drug trafficking. Attorney for trafficker wanted the reporter to testify about what he saw b/c he said his client was wrongly accused of the crime. The reporter was seen as a neutral source who the attorney though would be able to reveal the truth. The reporter did not want to testify b/c he said if he did, other reporters would then also have to testify b/c they deal w/ criminal information all the time. Court decides to subpoena the reporter, based on the 3-part test

Front 30

Star Editorial v. U.S. District Court

Back 30

"Aftermath of Branzburg": Involves Rodney Dangerfield chasing two women w/ tongs, as reported in Star Editorial. Dangerfield sues for libel. Attorney wants reporter to testify but the reporter refuses. The attorney for Dangerfield says he cannot properly represent his client in order to prove actual malice occurred unless the source is revealed by the Star's reporter. The court forces the reporter to testify. "No source, no rule." The Court says that if you refuse to testify, we assume there was no source, and favors the defendend

Front 31

Stanley v. Georgia

Back 31

Determining obscenity standards for possession: State of Georgia has a law which says there can be no possession of obscene pornographic material. The police go to Stanley's house looking for gambling material but end up finding pornographic video tapes which they think fall within the obscenity laws. Stanley wins the case. Thurgood Marshall defends Stanley b/c he felt Stanley had the right to privacy in his own home

Front 32

Osbourne v. Ohio

Back 32

Determining obscenity standards for possession: Osbourne's lawyer was not able to argue Stanley v. Georgia as a set precedent b/c Osbourne had possession of child pornography

Front 33

Ferber v. New York

Back 33

Determining distribution standards of "obscene" material: Ferber was arrested for selling child pornography to an undercover police officer. Ferber argues in court that he did not have to do with the set-up or involvement of the children in the films. The court uses this case to "save a dollar" from the "next Ferber" and says Ferber is part of the problem for selling the material, and therefore is punished for his involvement in the distribution of the material.

Front 34

Rowan v. Post Office

Back 34

Attempt to cut obscene material at a federal level: Rowan was sending obscene materials through the mail. Court votes for the Post Office b/c they said business owners did not have the right to send out messages that some people have not consented to view or be a part of.

Front 35

Jacobson v. U.S.

Back 35

Attempt to cut obscene material at a federal level: Jacobson was arrested and prosecuted for possession of child pornography. Jacobson argues in court that he received solicitations in the mail and was "entrapped" by the solicitation.

Front 36

Keego Harbor v. Keego Harbor Co.

Back 36

Controlling obscenity through zoning: Keego Harbor wants to pass a law saying no adult store can be within 500 ft of a church, school, or tavern. The bookstore sees this law as prior restraint on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The court votes in favor of the bookstore b/c the law threatened the bookstore's ability to make money b/c the town was so small that there was no where that it could be placed that wouldn't be within 500ft of any of these facilities. Therefore the court decided to regulate zoning laws within reason:
1. A law cannot be put into place if it would cause a store to go out of business
2. the law must promote state interest and benefit society
3. Any ordinance put into place would have to prove that it restrict as little as possible and causes little damage to business owners

Front 37

Ernozniki v. Jacksonville

Back 37

Controlling obscenity through zoning: City passes a law to prevent sexual content from being shown at outdoor theaters. Ernozkiki, the owner of the outdoor theater takes this ordinance to court b/c he felt it interfered w/ his ability to turn a profit. The court strikes down the law b/c of point #3 of the zoning regulations on the 3 par test. The court said the Jacksonville ordinance tried to hard to restrict too much speech by doing too little

Front 38

PMRC

Back 38

(Parents Music Resource Center) Led by Tipper Gore; aimed at placing parental advisory labels on albums. Ex. Luke Records v. Navaro: Luther Campbell was selling obscene material in a FL music store. Authorities attempted to arrest Campbell for selling the material. Campbell argues part #3 of Miller Test, that the material had social value. Court voted in favor of Campbell b/c they said that music may have obscene material, but it still may present some value so it should be able to be sold; people don't take to lyrics seriously

Front 39

FCC

Back 39

Federal Communications Commission: Federal agency established in 1934; it oversees broadcast, cable, satellite, and telephonic communications systems; Empowered to regulate government licences with respect to broadcast regulation, meaning that it may regulate only the individuals and companies who have been granted a licence to run specific local TV or radio stations; 5 commissioners appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate; no more than 3 of whom may be of the same political party; has the power to give and take away license; recommends call letter, gives channel #s, regulates power transmitted so stations do not interfere with stations in other cities

Front 40

Ancillary Powers doctrine

Back 40

The courts have granted the FCC authority to regulate matters not specifcally enumerated in the Federal Communications Act but which the commission must oversee if it is to effectively regulate interstate transmissions by individual licences. The FCC has also been permitted to maintain some oversight of radio and TV networks, which are not themselves licensed entities

Front 41

Why Treat Broadcast and Print Media Differently?

Back 41

1. Trusteeship: As demonstrated by the Radio Act of 1927, Congress asserts that the airwaves belong to the public and in order to have a license to operate radio or TV, you must serve the public's interest
2. Scarcity of Spectrum: There is a limited number of stations, therefore what is available, must be regulated
3. Pervasiveness: We have little control over what kinds of messages might be transmitted to us; channel surfing while settling down to "watch TV' causes us to miss even well-intentioned disclaimers
4. Protecting the children: broadcast media are especially accessible to children and therefore seen as "dangerous"; broadcast media has an impact on this audience that print media does cannot.

Front 42

Minority Ownership

Back 42

Because there is such a low percentage of minority stations compared to the percentage that minorities make up in our country's population, the FCC has tried to broaden the base of minorities to own more stations in order to increase diversity over the airways. Affirmative action, is meant to "level the playing field." The FCC plans to enhance minority ownership of stations but suggesting that when companies sell a station, they should try and sell it to a minority. The courts have generally been very skeptical b/c this rationale promotes reverse discrimination

Front 43

Tax Certificate Program

Back 43

Companies would not have to pay taxes if broadcasting stations are sold to minorities. This program was disbanded after companies tried to go around the rules. Ex. A male CEO listing his wife as the president of the company

Front 44

Reagan Revolution

Back 44

1. "Deregulation": transfer power from Washington to American businesses, such as local stations, giving more freedom to station owners
2. "validate or eliminate": unless the FCC rules have value, we should get rid of them
3. "Rule of 7": No person can own more than 7 FM, AM of TV station
4. Disbanded the "Fairness Doctrine": No longer the law
5. "Cross-Ownership": Ownership of a broadcasting and print company in the same city OK; people could own more

Front 45

Fairness Doctrine

Back 45

(1949-1987) Serve community under trusteeship concept; tell community the news; companies had to prove that the news they were broadcasting was solid information in order to renew their license; have to serve public in a fair way; not liked by station owners b/c they didn't want the FCC in their business; phased out b/c of Reagan philosophy

Front 46

FCC v. Red Lion Radio

Back 46

Test Case of Fairness Doctrine: (1969) Red Lion Radio played a tape from a fiery preacher, Billy Hargass, who went around the country as an anti-communist, urging Americans to ban together to generate support against communism. Hargass attacks author Fred Cooke, saying that he was supporting communism by cutting down police forces. After the station denied Cooke's demand to respond to Hargass's bashing, Cooke went to the FCC, aruguing that he had the right to be heard on the station too, based on the Fairness Doctrine; The FCC supports Cooke and the case goes to the S.C. The court votes in favor of the FCC, stating that the public airwaves gives the rights to the listeners, not the broadcasters. The "personal attack rule" was also applied b/c Cooke was "attacked" and deserved a fair chance to let his side of the story be heard

Front 47

Patsy Mink's Challenge

Back 47

From Hawaii, Mink sent a tape to a radio station is W.V. about strip-mining, explaining the environmental dangers of it and the bill that was sent to Congress in attempt to control the act. The W.V. radio station refused to play the tape, so Mink went to the FCC. The FCC forced the station to play the tape. They were very upset b/c their audience was made up of many people involved in strip-mining.

Front 48

Hush-Rush Controversy

Back 48

Since the deregulation of the Fairness Doctrine, there has been a debate whether or not it should be brought back: Rush Limbaugh, a conservative gospel speaker, would most likely be shot down on the airways if Fairness Doctrine was reestablished b/c station owners would not be able to find a comparable liberal radio voice. Those who wanted to push Rush off the air were favor of the Doctrine because they would lose the competition of the stations that broadcast Rush.

Front 49

FCC v. WNCN

Back 49

Due to deregulation of the Fairness Doctrine: Listeners were upset b/c WNCN radio station switch formats to a different type of music. The Reagan Philosophy kept the FCC from regulating the type of music the station played. Court ruled for FCC. This was a positive outcome of the Reagan Philosophy b/c the FCC did not want to control the type of music the station played if it wasn't making money.

Front 50

Children's Programming

Back 50

1. (1990) Children's Television Act: In order to keep license, the station must provide educational programming; No more than 10mins of advertising per hour during children's programming
-->vague: what = educational?

Front 51

Indecency

Back 51

Milder than Obscenity. Landmark case: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation-indecent b/c it is easy to miss disclaimer and it was easily accessible to children.
Safe Harbor Act established to prevent indecency

Front 52

CBS v. FCC

Back 52

Indecency on public airwaves: Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl; FCC fined the network 1/2 million $$ but did not fine affiliate stations b/c the had no control over the airing of the program. CBS argued that they did not know that the malfunction would occur, and it was an unpreventable mishap which they also had no control over. The S.C. voted for the network b/c they felt it was an overreaction on the FCC's part.

Front 53

Foreseeable Harm

Back 53

Responsibility for Harm: Man speeds to get 1st place to a radio station's contest and kills someone on the way. The family of the deceased sues the radio station. The court votes in favor of the family, stating that the radio station was encouraging people to drive recklessly

Front 54

FCC Rules during Elections

Back 54

1. The Access Rule: If you have a local channel, you must serve the public. You must give both party candidates a chance to go on the air, promoting democracy
2.Equal Opportunity Provision: Only applies to legally qualified candidates and includes election advertising and news. If one candidate pays for a commercial during a certain time spot, the opposing candidate is allowed to pay the same amount during the same time, expanding the marketplace of ideas

Front 55

CBS v. FCC

Back 55

Applying the Access Rule: (1979) Carter wants to run for re-election. Campaign wants to buy time on the major networks for 1hr to announce re-election campaign. Networks say no, so the Carter campaign argued that the networks were violating the access rule. The networks were not able to provide a legal argument against the Carter campaign, their only reasoning to deny being that it was a whole year before the election. Court votes for Carter, stating that the networks were required to air the program even against their will. Democracy must work, they must serve the public. Election campaigns start at least a year in advance

Front 56

Exemptions to Equal Opportunity Rule

Back 56

Equal Opportunity does not apply when:
1. Candidates are not newsworthy (ex. Kennedy for President v. FCC)
2. Coverage deals with basic news
3. During primary elections
4. Candidate is not representing the republican or democratic party

Front 57

Becker v. FCC

Back 57

Access Rule applied: Becker runs for Congressman in GA. Wanted to show an abortion taking place to get across his anti-abortion message. TV station agrees to run commercial only in the middle of the night. FCC sides w/ station. Controversy goes to court. Court votes in favor of Becker, stating that the station must provide their message on TV during election time. It is up to the public to take in the message and come up with their own opinion.

Front 58

Lutheran Church v. FCC

Back 58

Employment provisions: Lutheran church station hired only Lutherans; FCC said they understood that employees on air were only Lutherans but the same rule can not apply to employees with other positions

Front 59

Christine Craft

Back 59

Wrote the book, "Too Old, Too Ugly, and Not Deferential to Men" after being fired from a TV station. The station argued that it wasn't their personal opinion of her for why she was fired, it was the audience ratings of her that were too low. Craft lost the case b/c the court found that it was a management decision, not discrimination.

Front 60

TV Contracts

Back 60

Includes money, benefits, health coverage, further education, duties on the job, appearance requirements
Non-compete Clause: Cannot work at a rival company in the same field for 2-3 years after release from a contract
Top Ten Provision: Sign for 5 years in local area but contract can be broken if a much larger station offers an employee a better job
Right to Refusal Provision: Local station has the chance to match offer of a bigger and better job offer from a station in a Top Ten market. Employee must then stay with local station

Front 61

Ohio v. Dalton

Back 61

State v. Dalton is a legal case in the United States state of Ohio involving the prosecution of a man for recording fictional tales of alleged child pornography in a diary.
In 1998, Brian Dalton was charged with possession of child pornography; he pled guilty and was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He was released after 4 months and received 3 years probation. After violating his probation by failing to attend a sex offender treatment program, he was arrested. His mother then informed his probation officer that she had found questionable material in his apartment, a journal. Dalton's journal was retrieved; it contained graphic depictions of the torture and rape of children. Police determined the depictions were fictional.
Dalton was charged with production and possession of child pornography. As part of a plea bargain, he pled guilty to one of the charges in July 2001. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison, in addition to the remaining time from the first case. Dalton then attempted to change his guilty plea, to pursue an appeal. The trial court denied his request.
Dalton, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, charged that the Ohio child pornography statute was unconstitutional. Ohio law forbids the possession of all child pornographic materials, including writings, while the U.S. Supreme Court has generally held that only the possession of obscene photographic depictions of actual children may be outlawed.
The case received wide publicity because of the private nature of a diary and a novel application of state child pornography laws.
In July 2003, the Court of Appeals of Ohio vacated the conviction and allowed Dalton to retract his guilty plea, accepting his argument that he would not have pled guilty had he not received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed lawyer. The court did not speak to the constitutional issues.
In November 2003, the Ohio Supreme Court declined, by a 5-2 vote, to take the case on further appeal [1]. The case was sent back to trial court, and in March 2004, was dismissed. The trial judge held that "the charge did not meet the standard of the Ohio law that prosecutors used"

Front 62

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton

Back 62

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973). The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a state court's injunction against the showing of obscene films in a movie theatre restricted to consenting adults. The Court distinguished the case from Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), saying that the privacy of the home that was controlling in Stanley was not present in the commercial exhibition of obscene movies in a theatre.