New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Studyguide for Chapter 5,6,7

by: Natalie Land

Studyguide for Chapter 5,6,7 COM 250

Marketplace > University of Miami > Communication Studies > COM 250 > Studyguide for Chapter 5 6 7
Natalie Land
GPA 4.0

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Here is a very detailed and understandable study guide for Chapters 5,6,7 for the test these notes are all from the book!
Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
Samuel Terilli
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics

Popular in Communication Studies

This 10 page Study Guide was uploaded by Natalie Land on Sunday November 8, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to COM 250 at University of Miami taught by Samuel Terilli in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 86 views. For similar materials see Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics in Communication Studies at University of Miami.

Similar to COM 250 at UM

Popular in Communication Studies


Reviews for Studyguide for Chapter 5,6,7


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 11/08/15
Chapter  Five:  Fighting  Words     •   1942  Chaplinsky  v  New  Hampshire     o   specific  kind  of  categorization     o   fighting  words:  when  we  were  little  we  were  sometimes  admonished  by  our   parents:  the  words  they  used  promoted  a  violent  reaction     o   fighting  words:  potential  of  provoking  a  fight   •   Back  in  History     o   British  often  justified  restrictions  on  speech  using  the  idea  that  their  could  be  a   risk  of  disrupting  the  peace  with  certain  speech     o   American  law  also  often  punished  speech  that  disrupted  the  peace  and  cuased   disorderly  conduct     §   IE:  in  Tennessee,  ruled  that  obscene  and  vulgar  words  were  punishable   because  they  could  cause  violence  and  corruption  of  social  morals     o   These  words  in  general  were  punished  words  but  for  decades  there  wasn’t  one   theory  as  to  why  they  were  punished  words,  it  was  all  different  theories  based   on  different  cases     o   Finally  theories  more  concrete  ones  arose  from  the  Chaplisnky  v  New   Hampshire  Case     •   Categorical  Expression  and  Fighting  Word  Document     o   In  1941,  two  questions  arose   §   Could  words  that  promote  violence  be  punished  under  the  amendment     §   And  if  so,  what  criteria  should  be  used  to  determine  if  the  words  have   that  tendency  to  promote  violence?   §   They  wanted  to  prevent  violence  but  without  hurting  the  freedom  of   expression  and  communication  in  general     o   Chaplinsky  V  New  Hampshire     §   When:  1942   §   Who:  Chaplinsky:  Jehovah’s  Witness   §   What:  He  was  preaching  and  distributing  literal  on  a  street  and  the  police   removed  him  after  complaints  by  other  people,  they  wanted  to  avoid   disturbing  the  peace,  they  removed  him  before  much  peace  was   disturbed.  Chaplinsky  argued  and  released  a  verbal  fulmination     §   Result:  In  Chaplinsky  the  judge  Murphy  said  that  there  can  be  exceptions   to  the  fourteenth  amendment  under  which  speech  should  and  isn’t   protected     •   IE:  words  by  which  their  very  utterance  inflicts  injury  or  damage   peace  immediately     §   Result:  its  not  what  the  person  addressed  considered  to  be  offensive  is   whats  offensive,  but  rather  the  average  man  of  common  intelligence   thinks  would  cause  the  average  man  to  fight,  is  what  should  be   considered  offensive,  not  the  lateral     §   Justice  Murphy’s  Conclusion:  fighting  words  are  not  protected  by  the   first  amendment     •   Fighting  words  in  general  have  no  value  no  meaning  and  no   place  in  the  market  place  of  ideas,  because  they  aren’t  ideas     •   Also  to  limit  expression  on  behavior  that  threated  peace  including   fight  words:  these  fight  words  cause  an  IMMEDIATE  breach  of   peace     •   Fighting  Words  Definition  Refined   o   Terminello  v  Chicago   §   Who:  Father  Terminello   §   When:  1949   §   What:  in  an  auditorium  he  lashed  out  at  Jews,  African  americans,  and   outside  the  hall  angry  people  began  protesting  and  throwing  rocks  and   windows  broken  etc     •   Terminello  was  charged  for  disrupting  the  peace,  the  Chicago   court  said  that  he  was  convicted  under  speech  that  caused   public  to  be  angry.   §   Result:  Was  appealed  to  court  which  then  ruled  this  conviction   unconstitutional   •   They  said  words  cant  be  punished  just  because  their  content   creates  personal  emotional  distress     o   The  words  must  induce  reaction  greater  than  annoyance   or  unrest     •   The  question  left  to  answer  was     o   Should  fight  words  be  punished  on  content  (meaning)  or   context(  situation)     •   Definition  Narrowed     o   Two  decades  pass  since  court  revisits  the  whole  issue  with  fight  words     o   Cohen  V  California   §   When:  during  world  in  Vietnam     §   What:  Cohen  was  in  courthouse  corridor  wearing    a  jacket  that  said  fuck   the  draft,  however  no  one  not  even  the  defendant  was  involved  or   caused  violence     •   He  was  convicted  by  California     §   Result:  they  used  contextual  analysis  and  ruled  for  protecting  speech     •   Harlan  judge:  said  the  emotive  force  is  the  most  essential   element  in  fight  words     •   The  court  said  they  cant  punish  him  on  content  of  message  as   long  as  no  intent  of  disobedience  or  disruption  to  the  draft  is   shown     §   Fighting  words  doctrine:  word  in  question  produces  different  reaction   depending  on  audience     •   States  can  ban  fighting  words  that  ordinary  citizens  would   consider  the  words  to  provoke  violence     §   Emotive  content:  for  the  first  time  here  in  Cohen  v  California  fighting   words  were  seen  to  have  value     •   This  challenges  chaplinsky  which  said  that  words  such  as  fascist   and  racketer  had  no  value     o   Cohen  and  Free  Speech:  cohen  case  also  gave  credit  to  the  idea  that     §   Free  speech  protects  responsible  criticism  as  well  as  freedom  to  speak   foolishly  without  moderation     •   Its  good  to  have  verbal  chaos  it  shows  a  sign  of  strength     •   In  the  results  of  this  case  it  is  determined  that  there  is  no  such   thing  as  a  “bad”  idea     •   With  the  cohen  case,  there  was  a  lot  of  free  speech  and  defense   for  speech  unlike  the  other  cases  which  limited  it   •   Gooden  v  Wilson   o   Rejects  idea  of  average  person  test  for  fighting  words     o   Who:  Jonny     o   What:  was  arrested  for  picketing  along  with  other  protestors  at  an  army   induction  center     §   Was  asked  to  leave  but  he  refused  and  assaulted  and  batteried  two   cops  screaming  I  will  kill  you!     §   Convicted  under  Georgia     o   Result:  case  was  appealed  and  sent  to  court  which  then  said  that  Georgia  was   violating  the  first  amendment  because     §   It  was  so  overbroad  it  was  a  statute  that  included  speech  already   protected  by  first  amendment     §   Brennan  refined  Chaplinsky:  starting  from  this  case  the  court  would  no   longer  look  at  what  the  common  average  man  would  think  to  be  fighting   words  but  what  the  man  addressed  in  a  specific  situation  would  consider   fighting  word.     •   Rather  evaluate  fighting  words  situation   •   Mother  Fuckers  Cases     o   They  are  called  like  this  because  they  were  all  cases  where  people  were   convicted  for  using  this  word     o   Rosenfeld  v  New  Jersey     §   Who:  attended  and  addressed  a  public  school  board  meeting  and  used   words  mother-­‐fucker     §   What:  was  tried  and  convicted  under  a  new  jersey  law  alleging  that  any   person  who  utters  a  loud  and  profane  or  indecent  language  in  any  public   street  or  other  public  place  is  a  disorderly  person     §   Result  :   o   Brown:     §   Appellant  spoke  to  a  large  group  of  men  and  women  gathered  at   University  of  Tulsa  Chapel     §   He  refered  to  some  police  as  motherfucking  fascist  cops     §   Was  convicted  under  Oklahoma  statute  prohibiting  obscene  language     o   Lewis:  police  had  been  in  the  process  of  arresting  the  appellant’s  son  on  other   grounds  and  lewis  tried  to  intervine  calling  police  officers  motherfuckers     o   The  court  simply  vacated  in  all  three  cases  the  conviction  and  retured  the  case   to  the  lower  court     o   This  had  effects  on  the  coming  situations     §   Especially  in  Lewis:  words  may  or  may  not  be  considered  fighting  words   depending  on  the  situation,     §   Contextual  framework  of  fighting  words  was  the  decision     o   The  court  continued  to  believe  that  fighting  words  should  be  a  categorical   exception  to  the  first  amendment   •   The  RAV  decision   o   When:  1991   o   Who:  The  city  of  st  paul  had  enacted  the  Bias  motivated  crime  ordinance     §   This  outlawed  the  use  of  symbols  causing  anger,  alarm,  or  resentment   based  on  factors  such  as  race,  religion,  or  gender     §   Rav  burned  a  cross  inside  the  yard  of  an  African  American  family     §   But  Rav  argued  that  he  wasn’t  doing  anything  illegal     §   One  thing  raised  by  this  case  is  the  idea  of  whether  a  symbol  of  racist   oppression  should  be  protected  by  the  constitution     o   As  a  result     §   The  Rav  case  had  an  effect  on  the  Categorical  Exceptions  and  Fighting   words  Doctrine     •   It  showed  in  the  RAV  majority  decision  that  certain  categories  of   expression  are  not  protected  by  the  first  amendment     •   Scalia  said     o   A  limited  categorical  approach  has  remained  an  important   part  of  our  first  amendment     o   One  thing  discussed  was  that  fighting  words  in  general  and   categorical  exceptions  do  have  communicative  value,  you   cannot  say  that  they  are  not  speech,  because  they  are     o   They  are  punished  because  they  are  not  essential  to   express  any  idea,  you  don’t  need  them     §   In  Cohen  the  individual  chooses  whether  the  word  is  necessary  for  his  or   her  message,  but  in  RAV  the  government  declares  whether  the  word  is   necessary  or  not  to  express  the  idea!!!     §   States  can  restrict  certain  words,  but  they  cant  do  so  based  on  content,   rather  context       Chapter  6:  Hate  Speech       •   Example  of  hate  speech:   o   Columbia  University  invites  president  of  Iran  to  speak  on  destruction  of  Israel     §   Should  these  type  of  statements  be  protected?     o   Hate  Speech:  insults,  slurs,  or  epithets  directed  to  a  group  of  people  based  on   share  characteristic  of  that  group  and  it  is  usually  gender,  race,  or  religion     •   The  problem  of  hate  speech   o   Why  is  hate  speech  harmful?   §   such  words  as  racially  motivated  ones  are  more  harmful  than  others     §   because  individuals  are  verbally  attacked  on  a  characteristic  they  cannot   change     •   can  cause  self  hatred,  phsyological  problems,  lack  of  worth     •   Hate  Speech  in  Context  of  Prejudice     o   Historical,  political  and  social  context  of  wod  is  important     o   Virginia  v  Black:   §   Two  incidents     §   Incident  number  1:  Barry  Black  led  KKK  of  twenty  five  people  to  rally  near   a  highway  making  bad  remarks  about  people  of  color  etc  and  burned  30ft   tall  flag     §   Incident  number  2:  eliot  and  omara  attempted  to  burn  a  cross  in  the  yard   of  former  neighbor  to  an  African  American     §   Result:  context  of  prejudice  and  flag  is  important     §   If  intent  is  to  intimidate  then  it  could  be  punished     •   The  challenges  of  Hate  Speech  on  Campus     o   According  to  Brennan:  academic  freedom  is  important     •   Increase  in  reports  of  Hate  Speech     o   A  response  by  colleges  and  universities     o   Ie:  university  of  Michigan     §   Any  behavior,  verbal  physical  that  stigmatizes  or  victimizes  an  individual   on  the  basis  of  race,  ethnicity,  sex,  sexual  orientation  and  that     •   Involves  an  express  or  implied  threat  to  an  individual’s  academic   efforts,  etc     •   Or  has  the  purpose  of  reasonably  foreseeable  effect  of  interfering   with  an  individual’s  academic  efforts,  employment  etc     •   Or  creates  an  intimidating  hostile  environment  for  educational   pursuits     •   Do  Speech  Codes  Violate  the  First  Amendment?   o   Judge  Cohn  in  university  of  Michigan  case  said  the  law  violated  the  constitution   because  it  was  too  vague  and  overbroad  to  include  almost  too  many  words     •   The  University  of  Wisconsin    Policy     o   Students  could  be  disciplined  for  racist  or  discriminatory  comments  if     §   The  comments  intentionally  demean  race,  sex,  religion  or  color     §   Or  create  bad  environment     §   The  university  in  conclusion  said  that  they  were  only  prohibiting  racists   comments  and  words  that  had  no  value     §   This  analysis  was  rejected  saying  not  all  these  words  create  a  violence   response     §   The  court  also  denied  the  University’s  idea  of  labeling  hate  speech  as  a   category  of  unprotected  speech     •   Thinking  Critically  about  Hate  Speech     o   The  courts  consistently  agreed  that  hate  speech  regulations  violated  the  first   amendment   §   But  commentators  criticize  the  courts  reasonings     §   These  scholars  said  and  supported  hate  speech  regulations  while  court   did  not     §   The  scholars  believe  that     •   Bad  ideas  do  exist     o   No  such  thing  as  a  false  idea  is  what  the  court  says     §   The  scholars  say  such  as  assertions  on  racism  which   are  undeniably  bad  ones     §   With  human  experience  we  learn  that  certain  ideas   are  bad     •   The  first  amendment  should  trump  the  fourteenth     o   The  scholars  say  first  amendment  shouldn’t  always  prevail   when  conflicts  with  fourteenth  amendment     o   Ie:  verbal  harassment  can  affect  victim’s  academics  why   then  should  victims  right  to  have  an  equal  educational   opportunity  be  subordinate  to  free  speech  right?     •   Hate  speech  is  not  a  mere  insult     o   It’s  a  verbal  slap  in  the  fact  and  can  cause  long  term   emotional  pain     •   Hate  Speech  silences  other’s  voices     o   Members  of  target  group  are  silenced  because  of   connection  between  hateful  speech  and  subsequent   violent  acts       Chapter  7:  Defamation     •   Defamation   o   IE:  Obama  was  part  of  the  Islamic  plot     o   John  Mccain  fathered  an  illegitimate  child     o   Defamation  lawsuit:  happens  when  person  on  receiving  end  contends   statement  is  false     §   Communication  of  a  false  statement  of  fact  that  damages  reputation     o   Libel:  printed  word     o   Slander:  spoken  word     •   Rationale  used  for  defamation  lawsuits     o   Ruining  of  individual’s  reputation   o   These  lawsuits  impact  the  market  place  of  ideas  because  whatever  is  libel  is   taken  away  from  free  debate     o   In  Defamation  only  false  statements  that  ruin  reputation  are  punished     •   Ny  Times  vs  Sulivan     o   Malice  rule:  before  this  law  each  state  had  their  own  laws     o   Majority  rule:  defendant  risked  getting  sued  for  making  false  statement,  even  if   they  believed  it  was  true     §   This  included  false  statements  on  public  officials     o   When:  1963:  during  the  segregation  movement     o   Where:  it  was  decided  in  Alabama  and  then  appeled  to  the  Supreme  Court   o   What:  New  York  Times  published  ads  on  Sullivan  who  was  an  officer:  he  sued  for   defamation     §   He  claimed  it  had  innacuries  and  it  did  he  got  500,000  dollars     o   New  York  Times  appealed  to  the  Supreme  court     §   The  new  law  would  change  defamation  laws  forever,  it  would  now  be   nationwide  law  rather  than  state  law     §   The  new  law  was  that  actual  malice  had  to  be  proven   •   Meaning  that  a  communicator  makes  a  statement  knowing  the   statement  is  false,  or  without  caring  to  find  out  if  its  true  or  not     §   No   o   Now  question  was  what  constituted  a  public  official?   §   Who  is  a  public  official?   •   An  elected  city  commissioner  was  clearly  a  public  official     •   What  about  a  high  school  teacher  or  a  security  guard  at  a  park?   §   This  was  answered  in  Rosenblat  vs  Baer:   •   Baer  was  supervisor  of  the  County  in  New  Hampshire  of  a  ski   resort     o   Rosenblatt  wrote  a  column  and  Baer  said  it  constituted  as   libel  against  him     o   He  sued  and  the  majority  opinion  was  that  the  public   official  was  that  in  which  they  are  amongst  the  hierarchy   of  government  employees  who  have  or  appear  to  public  as   having  substantial  responsibility  for  conduct  of   governmental  affairs     •   The  lower  courts  decide  however  on  a  base  by  base  casis     o   Some  believe  public  school  teachers  are  public  officials   while  others  don’t  it  varies     •   If  a  person  has  access  to  the  media  to  tell  his  side  uses  media  to   perform  the  job  then  they  are  more  likely  to  be  considered  public   official     o   What  is  official  conduct?   §   In  the  NYT  case  it  was  noted  that  the  malice  rule  applied  to  public   officials  and  there  official  conduct?  What  about  their  private  life?     •   The  supreme  court  made  most  of  every  aspect  of  a  public  officials   life  part  of  the  official  conduct     §   Garrison  v  Louisiana     •   District  attorney  of  new  Orleans:  Jim  garrison  was  conviced  of   criminal  defamation  based  on  his  claim  that  the  Louisiana  state   court  judges  were  lazy     o   However,  the  court  upheld  the  conviction  because  they   said  Garrison  only  attacked  his  personal  life  of  the  judges   not  their  official  conduct     §   The  US  court  disagreed  and  said  that  anything   which  might  affect  the  official’s  fitness  for  office  is   relevant     §   Monitor  patriot  co  v  roy     •   Newspaper  column  that  referred  to  democratic  senate  candidate   as  a  bootlegger,  roy  sued  the  newspaper  for  libel     o   The  judgment  reversed  the  verdict  and  said  that  a  charge   of  criminal  conducts  no  mater  how  remote  in  time  or  place   can  never  be  irrelevant  to  an  official’s  or  candidates  fitness   for  office     o   Candidates  have  to  inform  the  voters  of  every  aspect  of   their  lives  that  might  affect  the  voting     •   The  Actual  malice  rule  applies  to  Public  Figures,  not  Private  citizens     o   Two  cases  that  were  not  public  officials     §   Wally  Buts:  former  athletic  director  at  University  of  Georgia,  Butt  sued   publisher  for  libel  and  he  got  money     §   Second  case  is  Gen  Edwin  Walker:  private  citizen  and  was  libeled  after   leaving  the  service  (Army)     §   Then  came  Curtis  Publish  Co  v  Butts  so  this  helped  determine  actual   malice  rule  with  private  figures     •   This  just  said  that  public  figure  could  only  sue  if  actual  malice  had   been  applied     §   Private  Citizens     •   The  Gertz  Case     o   Rosenbloom:  distributor  of  nudist  magazines,  and  he  was   charged  for  obscenity  ,  but  it  was  reversed  because  their   was  no  actual  malice     o   The  Supreme  court     §   Three  of  five  justices  extended  the  malice  rule  to   this  public  figure:  when  the  topic  of  a  news  report   is  of  public  interest  it  is  irrelevant  whether  the   person  is  public  of  private     •   Now  came  the  Gertz  Case  which  led  to  final  majority  decision   o   Elmer  Gerts  represented  a  family  in  a  lawsuit  against  a   police  officer:  he  had  been  convicted  of  murder  after   shooting  this  family’s  son.  The  lawyer  had  been  called  a   frontier  communist  in  a  newspaper  and  he  sued  and  won     o   The  supreme  court  declined  to  extend  the  malice  rule   using  the  market  place  of  ideas  rationale:     •   Standards  for  determining  who  is  a  public  figure   o   Limited  and  All  purpose  public  figures   §   All  purpose  public  figures     •   Achieved  general  fame  in  community  or  are  heavily  involved  in   society’s  affairs     •   Michelle  Obama     §   Limited  purpose  public  figures     •   Only  considered  public  with  respect  to  comments  pertaining  to   their  involvement  with  public  controversy  in  question     o   Supreme  Court  Public  Figure  Decisisons   §   Active  involvement  in  public  issues  makes  a  plaintiff  a  public  figure     §   The  lower  courts  have  space  to  establish  additional  criteria  for  public   figures     §   Limited  Context  Public  Figures:  if  a  person  is  renowned  in  a  particular   field  is  he  a  public  figure  even  if  not  famous  at  large?   •   Craig  owl  was  famous  in  the  surging  community  and  he  sued  for   defamation     •   The  court  said  he  wasn’t  a  public  figure  because  it  wasn’t  world   wide  famous     •   But  there  was  a  unique  surfing  community  so  the  malice  standard   would  be  applied     §   Involuntary  Public  Figures:  become  a  public  figure  through  no  purposeful   actions  of  his  or  her  own   o   Can  a  plaintiff  return  to  private  figure  status  over  time?   §   Public  officials  and  public  figures  need  to  prove  actual  malice  as  they   thrust  themselves  into  public  sphere,  negligence  is  sufficient  for  those   who  aren’t  public  figures     §   Passage  of  time  narrows  possibility  for  which  a  plaintiff  is  a  public  figure     •   If  a  lot  of  time  passes     •   The  New  York  Times  Rule     o   Arguments  for  Knowing  malice:  falsity     §   There  was  a  review  of  bose  speakers  in  Consumer  Reports  Magazine  and   they  argued  that  Seligson  knew  the  statement  was  false  because  the   average  person  knows  that  around  the  room  is  not  logical     §   Supreme  Court  disagreed  and  said  that  there  was  no  evidence  that  he   knew  the  claim  was  false  when  he  wrote  it     §   You  had  to  have  actual  proof  of  knowing  falsity     §   Reckless  Disregard  for  Truth   •   Recklessness  is  determined  on  a  case  by  case  basis     •   Reckless  disregard  based  on  serious  doubts     o   Its  not  based  on  whether  investigation  was  done  before   but  instead  is  there  sufficient  evidence  to  permit  the   conclusion  that  the  defendant  in  fact  entertained  serious   doubts  about  the  truth     §   Reckless  disregard  based  on  Defendant’s  Motive     §   Reckless  disregard  based  on  deviation  from  professional  standards     •   Extreme  departure  from  profession  standards  is  not  enough     •   Poor  investigative  techniques  may  constitute  circumstantial   evidence  that  defendant  had  doubts     •   Malice  and  Negligence  Compared     o   Strict  liability:  defendant  is  liable  for  false  defamatory  statement  even  if  he  or   she  reasonably  believed  it  was  true     o   Negligence:  defendant  must  have  acted  with  reasonable  care  in  checking  on  the   truth  of  an  article  before  it  is  published,  works  in  plaintiff’s  favor     •    


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Kyle Maynard Purdue

"When you're taking detailed notes and trying to help everyone else out in the class, it really helps you learn and understand the I made $280 on my first study guide!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.