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


by: Natalie Land


Marketplace > University of Miami > Communication Studies > COM 250 > STUDY GUIDE FOR THE FINAL
Natalie Land
GPA 4.0
Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
Samuel Terilli

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

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

Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
Samuel Terilli
Study Guide
50 ?




Popular in Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics

Popular in Communication Studies

This 0 page Study Guide was uploaded by Natalie Land on Friday December 11, 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 84 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




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: 12/11/15
Chapter 11 Technology and the First Amendment I Indecent expression showed on technology such as radio tv etc has caused a lot of controversy 0 Ie Janet Jackson s exposed boob on superbowl CBS was fined for this I Fairness Doctrine 1993 O Broadcasters carrying partisan shows had to provide time for opposing views I This doctrine didn t pass congress O The problems with restrictions on technology was that they targeted speech already protected by the first amendment 0 Depending on the medium I Radio television internet there were different limitations I Medium Specific Restrictions O The history I Motion pictures some hated the Great Train Roberry for its crime and violence that it showed I Case Number One Mutual Film corporation v Ohio I Law said there had to be a censorship board and could only approve of films that were moral educational and amusing of character I Communications Act 1934 Radio and Television I 20th century radio and television became dominant 0 radio required transmission of signals from sender to receiver 0 transmitted on electromagnetic spectrum with finite number of frequencies I radio years as a result became very chaotic because with limit amount of frequencies one would interfere with another and nothing would be heard I as a result Communications Act of 1934 I they began to give licenses to broadcast and you only received a license if public convenience necessity or interest would be served I Telephone Companies Common Carriers 0 Common carriers so didn t have same governmental control as broadcast and motion pictures I Telephone networks weren t scarce and if you could afford it you could have it I Theories used to justify broadcast regulations 0 With limited amount of frequency signals restrictions were inevitable I But whou should be denied frequency and who should not I Highest bidder gets frequency This would not work because then minorities don t have a word on broadcasting channels etc 0 Fairness Doctrine 0 Required those holding licenses to broadcast to I Provide coverage of only important controversial issues of the time I Provide opportunity for opposing viewpoints 0 Is this any different than forcing ag salute which is not allowed 0 Case Number 2 Red lion v FCC I WGCB showed a 15 minute broadcast by Reverend on Christian Crusade Series 0 They said Cook was fired for making false charges etc 0 Cook got upset for these false accusations and wanted reply time but the station refued O The FCC declared this refusal wrong and then the broadcasting company didn t like this FCC declaration so took the whole case to the supreme court I The broadcasting company claimed that this whole idea was abridgement of there freedom of expression 0 Reconsidering Fariness Doctrine 0 Even though the fairness doctrine woon the challenge in red lion they still had a lot of questions and controversy to it I Broadcasters who feared presenting opposing viewpoints could elect to limit the number of controversial issues they covered I This doctrine was claimed unnecessary because of the growing broadcasting stations and alternative to broadcasting technology I Also might use this doctrine as a weapon against critics of the government which isn t fair I Also lack of parity between the broadcast media and other media 0 For example newspapers weren t required of presenting opposing viewpoint 0 They repeal the doctrine two years later I They try to put a new law the fairness broadcasting act but the president veotes the act 0 Pervasiveness of broadcasting 0 Invades every aspect of our lives and it cant be ignored I Janet Jackson commercial thingy was a surprise so we couldn t have avoided seeing it 0 Radio Act of 1927 prohibited obscene indecent or profane language on air 0 Case number three FCC v Pacifica Foundation 0 Father is driving with son when he hears the words by carlin that are indecent and he is offended and he thinks his son shouldn t be listening to this stuff I FCC agrees with father and says indecent speech isn t protected I Paficia goes against this and defends carlins monologue saying this is his job he is a satirist onky making fun of the language of this place O O 0 Also the company clearly advises listeners right before the broadcast of the sensitivity to language I Ends up reaching the supreme court 0 Does the FCC have the power to restrict indecent yet not obscene language I Opinions about the case 0 Different forms of communications have different first amendment problems 0 The one for broadcast communication are two especially including I Broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out prior warnings cannot always be heard you might have missed it 0 Broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children even those too young to read Development of Broadcast Indecency regulation I The court noted that the time of day the composition of the audience and the broadcast medium used would have to be considered 0 The legitimatcy of the regulation depending on the context I In 1987 the fcc issued a notice that it would do a new indecency policy 0 Any material that met the generic definition of indecency would be classified as indecent I Not only carlins type of words or repeated usage of words like before 0 Also the time were indecent material would be aired would be from 1200 midnight no longer 1000 pm I However after this act soon congress ordered the FCC to put a twenty four hour indecency law basis I But this was challenged in the court because this was said to be unconstitutional I Action for Children s Television v FCC 0 The main results from this case were 0 The fee could enforce the general definition of indecency O The fee cannot impose a twenty four hour ban 0 Could limit the hours from 1000 pm to 600 am The Fleeting Expletives Doctrin I Re do this later 0 Regulation of Internet Connection 0 O O 0 By 1994 a lot of internet users This caused a threat of government restriction There was cyberponography and stuff as such Landmark Case Reno v ACLU I Senator Exon was concerned about children coming across obscene and indecent material online I In response to this he put the Communication Decency Act 0 First law to compose constraints on the internet 0 Banned the online transmission of indecent communication to minors and imposed penalties to violaters 0 However the justice department argued against it and said that CDA was not necessary because there was already prosecution on online obscenity and child porn under existing laws 0 In this case the intemet was said to be not as invasive as radio and television I They don t invade an individuals home or appear on screen withot permission 0 Also almost these bad images come with a warning of content before seeing the picture 0 They compare the CDA with pacifica I First Pacifica was when rather then whether it be permitted or not the CDA is not limited to particular times I Second unlike the CDA in the FCC declaratory order was not punishing I Also the FCC applied to a medium that had always received limited first amendment protection 0 Because listener could not protect from unexpected program content I Implications of Reno v ACLU 0 Internet became part of the most protected speech category 0 Court put a ruling that there is no basis for qualifying the level of first amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium 0 Look at pages 310 314 Reread the notes its better to


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

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."

Amaris Trozzo George Washington University

"I made $350 in just two days after posting my first study guide."

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."


"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.