Mass Media Law
Mass Media Law EMC 4250
Popular in Course
Popular in Media and Public Affairs
This 37 page Class Notes was uploaded by Cristobal O'Reilly on Wednesday September 23, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to EMC 4250 at Middle Tennessee State University taught by Larry Burriss in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 28 views. For similar materials see /class/212999/emc-4250-middle-tennessee-state-university in Media and Public Affairs at Middle Tennessee State University.
Reviews for Mass Media Law
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: 09/23/15
12711 Media Law 0 Reading the Law 0 EX Tinker V Des Moines School District 393 US 503 89 S Ct 733 21 L Ed 2d 731 1969 I Tinker V Des Moines Tinker bringing the action lost at the appellate court level at the supreme court I 89 S Ct Supreme court 0 Doe V Gonzalez 449 F 3d 415 2 101 Cir 2006 I F Federal Reporter only appellate court decision I Decided at the 2 101 Circuit court level 0 Burriss V Central Intelligence Agency 524 F Supp 448 MD Tenn 1981 I F Supp Federal Supplement name of the reporter 0 Candidates for Public Office 47 USC 315 I USC United States Code federal law I 315 Section 315 0 Candidates for Public Office 47 USC 315b 2C ii I 315b2Cii Section 315 plus subsections 0 Matthew Silverman National Security and the First Amendment A Iudicial Role in Maximizing Public Access to Information 78 Ind L 1101 2003 I Harvard Law Format 0 Applying the Law 0 Never Deny I Rarely Affirm 0 Always Distinguish o Pentagon Papers 0 O 0 Daniel Ellsberg a reporter who wrote a report on the Vietnam War decision making Ellsberg gave report to the New York Times First article written by NYT based on top secret information Second article written by NYT I Department ofustice asks NYT to stop I NYT says quotnoquot Third article written by NYT I Government issues TRO Temporary Restraining Orders Washington Post prints Department of Justice WP to halt publication I WP refuses I Iudge refuses to issue injunction District of Columbia Court of Appeals refuses injunction I DCNY dissolves TRO I 2CA NY halts publication SCOUS halts all publication Oral arguments 0 Supreme Court decision 63 in favor ofpublication Pentagon Papers Government Arguments 0 Publication violated espionage statutes 0 Publication was unauthorized disclosure 0 Irreparable harm Pentagon Papers WPNYT Arguments 0 Classification system was a sham 0 Publication caused no harm 0 Sometimes restraint might be warranted Granted Certiorari the Supreme Court wants to hear the case Pentagon Papers Decision 0 For Publication I Black amp Douglas Absolutist quotno law no lawquot I Marshall quotCourts should not do what legislature has failed to do I Brennan quotGov t did not meet burden of proof I Stewart amp White quotGov39t had not justified prior restraint 0 Against Publication I Burger quotLower courts need to decide issue first I Harlan amp Blackmun quotGov t knows best Pentagon Papers Result 0 Gov t tried to prosecute Ellsberg lost 12011 Media Law 0 Where does the law come from Constitutional Law 0 0 Statutory Law law enacted by legislature 0 Administrative Law law as written by administrative agencies broadcasting law 0 Common Law court made law Determining if a law violates the First Amendment Tests the court uses to determine if a law that restricts the First Amendment is constitutional o Strict Scrutiny o Arises when the law deals with a quotfundamental right I Does the law advance a compelling state interest I Is the law narrowly tailored I Is the law the least restrictive necessary 0 Intermediate Scrutiny 0 Does the law involve an important state interest 0 Is the state s interest furthered by the law 0 Rational Basis o The law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest 0 Common Law 0 Based on precedent and principle 0 Stare decisis let the decision stand Publication Defamation Identification Ifno defamation there is no libel Ifno libel there is no fault Ifnot fault question is public or private If private strict liability applies prublic official negligence or reckless disregard for the truth Libel Cases NY Times vs Sullivan in order for a public official to sustain libel they must prove malice Curtis and Publishing vs Butts magazine was negligent and was not quothot news Associated Press vs Walker was quothot news and Sullivan rule applied Rosenbloom vs Media expanded on Sullivan ruling had to be involved in public importance Gerch vs Welch defined who a public figure is someone who forces themselves into the public domain Time vs Firestone in order to be a public figure you had to be involved in public importance divorce is not public importance Herbert vs Lando Nonmedia plaintiff can inquire into the state of mind of the media defendant Privacy Cases Time vs Hill applied Sullivan malice ruling to privacy cases and the event cannot be newsworthy BetalLegosi vs Walt Disney image cannot be passed on after you die Loan Ranger and public opinion CBS vs DeCosta Carson vs quotHere s Iohnny confusing between image and persona Mendosa vs Time misappropriation Sidus vs SR Publising once your famous your always famous Publication of private matter False light something true that puts a false impression Intentional in iction of Misappropriation using name likeness persona for commercial intent Right to publicity Copyright Intellectual Property Fair Use What s the purpose of use 32211 Media Law 0 Curtis Publishing vs Butts 0 Saturday Evening Post was negligent to the duty it had I Saturday Evening Post did not check their facts 0 Court said I Story was NOT quothot news 0 Associated Press vs Walker 0 Walker is a segregationist 0 AP ran story on a school being segregated 0 Story had factual errors 0 Court said I Story WAS quothot news and needed to get out I Walker was a public figure Sullivan Rule I Errors were minimal 0 Rosenbloom vs Metromedia 0 Story about an incorrect article ofpossessing obscene literature 0 Court said I Rosenbloom is not a public figure I Involved in an issue ofpublic importance I Had to libel via malice o Gertz vs Welch defines who is a public figure either voluntary or involuntary o Gertz eventually wins libel case 0 Court said I Not a public official or figure I Gertz has not thrust himself into the vortex of public opinion 0 Time vs Firestone further restricted Sullivan rule 0 Court ruled in favor of Mary Alice I She is not a public figure 0 Herbert vs Lando most dangerous libel case 0 Body countfatalities case 0 Court said I Nonmedia libel plaintiff CAN inquire into the state of mind of the media defendant in order to show malice 0 Privacy the quality or state of being apart from company or observation freedom from unauthorized intrusion 0 Background I Privacy in American life I Rights vs Laws 0 Privacy Legal Origins US o Is quotprivacyquot listed as a right under the US Constitution No 0 But in the Bill of Rights I 4th Amendment protects citizens against Government intrusion 32911 Media Law 0 Misappropriation 0 Name 0 LikenessImage 0 Right to Publicity o Bela o Lugosi 0 Hugo Zacchini o The Lone Ranger 0 Paladin 0 Johnny Caruso o Bela Lugosi amp Universal Pictures Good vs Evil 0 Lugosi creator of Dracula dies and his family tries to get rights to the quotimagequot of Dracula o Lugosi s image is not copyrighted and cannot be passed on to his family 0 Hugo Zacchini o quotCannon Ball Man 0 Local TV station runs a small clip of Zacchini s act 0 Zacchini sues for copyright violation court rules that it is quotnewsworthyquot and it does not violate copyright 0 Clayton Moore and lack Wrather Good vs Evil 0 Takes mask away from Lone Ranger 0 CBS vs DeCosta o The Controversy 1947 Victor DeCosta creates image 1957 CBS launches 39Have Gun Will Travel 1966 DeCosta sues wins 150000 1967 1966 ruling overturned 1967 Cert Den Supreme Court 1974 DeCosta wins service mark infringement suit 1975 No likelihood of confusion 1976 Cert Den 1977 DeCosta obtains trademark 1991 Viacom violated trademark law DeCosta awarded 35 million 1992 Award overturned 1992 Family sues 1992 Family cannot relitigate 1993 Cert Den 0 Carson vs Here s Iohnny 1983 0 Rules against Johnny Carson at District level 0 Appeals at Circuit 0 BraXton deliberately used phrase quotHere s Iohnny to make people associate Johnny Carson with the portable toilet company 0 News Value vs Misappropriation 0 Alfred Eisenstadt takes photo after Iapanese war ends called quotThe Kiss 0 Time Magazine runs the photograph o Mendonsa who is in photo sues Time court rules the photo has newsworthiness and is not being used in an ad 0 Privacy Defenses o Newsworthiness news value 0 Consent signed away your rights 0 Privacy Cases 0 Sidis vs FR Publishing I Ifyou have thrust yourself into the public and are involved in matters ofpublic importance to allow open debate scrutiny is allowed 0 Time vs Hill I A family gets taken hostage by three convicts which is turned into novel play and movie I Time does review on the movie 39The Desperate Hours I The events portrayed was newsworthy I Court uses Malice Standard from Sullivan 0 Life Magazine did not purposely harm Hill 0 Could not prove malice 0 Copyright 0 Philosophical view taking images that are copyrighted is theft 0 Copyright protects particular phrase 0 Article 1 Section 88 0 quotThe Congress shall have powerto promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited time to authorsthe exclusive rights 0 Copyright Protection 0 Copyright protection attaches at time work is created or fixed in a tangible medium of expression 0 Not when registered 0 Not when published 31711 Media Law 0 Libel Libel Per Se 0 Group Libel I It is not necessary to name the person I Any member of the group can sue I 80 people or less 0 Libel How did you do it 0 Publication I Dissemination to a third party publisher person saying it and the receiver of the message I Each person can be sued every person who is involved in the libel I You do not need to have originated the libel to be sued if you repeat libelous statement you are responsible 0 Identification I Plaintiff has to prove someone believed the reference was to himher I That s why editors insist on complete identification with no errors 0 Defamation false statement that injuries somebody I If there is no defamation there is no libel I Crime news I Statements about competency o Libel Fault 0 Types I Negligence failure to do something you have a duty to do I Malice published with reckless disregard for the truth 0 Damages I Compensatory compensate you for actual loss I Punitive to punish the defendant to warn other media outlets to not make the same mistake o Libel Defenses 0 Major Defenses I Truth absolute defense in a libel case proved true no libel proved false your in trouble I Privilege only applies IF there is libel I Fair Comment only applies IF there is libel 0 Minor Defenses I Neutral Reporting only applies IF there is libel I Right of Reply only applies IF there is libel I Consent only applies IF there is libel I Statute of Limitations only applies IF there is libel o Libel Defenses Expanded 0 Truth I Plaintiffmust show the elements oflibel are present Defendant must prove the statements are true according to the rules of evidence If the statement is true then the motives for publication are irrelevant If the statement is false then the key issues becomes fault negligence or malice prrivate citizen it is ASSUMED the statement is malicious o Privilege Types 0 Absolute acting in their official capacity 0 Qualified we the media ought to be able to say the person with absolute privilege the libelous statement Sen William Proxmire s quotGolden Fleece Award Section 315 Privilege o A broadcaster is not allowed to edit a politicians ad 0 Fair Comment There is no such thing as a false opinion Protects the expression of opinion about them performance of those who voluntarily place themselves before the public Protects expression if 0 The expression is based on fact o The expression is a critique ofpublic performance not private life 0 Neutral Reporting I In my story I said something bad but also said something good 0 Right of Reply I In my story I said something bad but also gave you the right of reply 0 Consent I Did the plaintiff consent or give permission to the libelous statement 0 Statute of Limitations I Cannot be sued over 1 year and 1 day after the libelous statement 0 Cases 0 New York Times vs Sullivan the controlling libel case I The quotSullivan Case or quotSullivan Rule I In order for a public official to sustain a libel judgment the official must show malice 33111 Media Law 0 Copyright Basics 0 Intellectual Property I Patent useful nonobvious novel of application of an idea I Trademark used to indicateorigip of goods or services I Copyright original expression of an idea 0 Copyright Infringement vs Plagiarism I Copyright Infringement unauthorized use of copyrighted materials I Plagiarism Appropriating all or part of a composition or idea and passing them off as the product of one s own mind 0 Ownership vs Copyright I Mere ownership or possession does not confer copyright 0 Who can claim copyright I Author I Someone deriving rights from the author I Whoever is paying for the work work for hire I For an unpublished work the author owns the copyright I Authors of joint works are joint copyright owners I US Government 0 Works py US government are not copyrightable 0 Works M US government may be copyrightable by creator 0 Copyright Notice I Since 1989 you do not need to affix a copyright notice to obtain protection I But registration allows for more recovery in the case of infringement I The copyright mark is constructive notice of copyright therefore cannot claim innocent infringement 0 Fair Use I Fair Use balances right of owners vs those who want to access I Tests for fair use 0 Purpose ofuse 0 Commercial 0 Educational 0 Nature of work 0 Proportion taken in relation to the work as a whole 0 Economic impact 0 Copyright and the Internet I Public domain I Frames and linking I quotDeep linking 0 Baker vs Selden PRIMARY COPYRIGHT CASE Media law test 2 7 articles 45 and 6 o Amnesty International V James Clapper DNI 0 Time Place and Manner 0 Judicial Review 0 Symbolic Speech 0 Public Facilities and the Public Forum 0 Time Place and Manner 0 Judicial Review 0 Contentneutral regulations I Receive intermediate scrutiny o Contestbased regulations I Receive Strict Scrutiny o Viewpointbased regulations I Unconstitutional Symbolic Speech 0 De nition 7 Actions not words I The business card problem I Zoning The Public Forum 0 Traditional I Streets park and other public places that have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public 0 Limited I Limited or designated public forum I Property that government intentionally designates for public discourse o NonPublic I Property that is neither traditionally open nor dedicated by policy to public discourse eg a military base 0 Cases and Issues 0 Kovacs v Cooper I 336 US 77 1949 0 Sound trucks may broadcast political and commercial messages but not in a loud and raucous manner 0 Time place and manner regulation were reasonable time place and manner case 0 Southeastern Promotions v Conrad I 420 US 546 1975 I Rejection of application was a prior restraint lacking any procedural safeguards 0 Texas v Johnson I 491 US 397 1989 I State law in Texas was contentbased I Johnson s conduct would not cause any immediate harm o Barnes v Glenn Theatre I 501 US 560 1991 I Nude dancing in a nightclub is not expressive activity 0 Krishna Consciousness V Lee 505 US 672 1992 0 Lee V Krishna Consciousness 505 US 830 1992 I A publicallyowned airport is not a public forum I A ban on solicitation is valid I A ban on distribution is invalid o Seaport Village I Tshirt A simple math problem Causes Correlations and Casual Ordering 0 Correlation is not causation Defamation Libel 7 Libel Per Se printed 0 De nition 7 false statement 7 Any false statement that tends to I Bring a person into public hatred contempt ridicule I Cause a person to be shunned or avoided I Injures a person in their business or occupation o Libel Per Se I It is libelous per se if any of the following conditions exist 0 You accuse someone of a crime and the person is innocent o Statements or insinuations of insanity or loathsome disease 0 Statements or assertions of a lack of capacity to conduct business or profession 0 Any statement which tends to bring a person into public hatred contempt or scorn 0 Group Libel I It is not necessary to name the person Any member of the group can sue o How do you do it I Publication 0 Dissemination to a third party 0 Each person can be sued 0 You do not need to have originated the libel to be sued I Identification o A plaintiff has to prove someone believed the reference was to himher 0 That s why editors insist on complete identification with no error I Defamation o If there is no defamation there is no libel 0 Crime News o Statements about competency I Types 0 Fault 0 Types I Negligence 0 Failed to do something you should have done I Malice 0 Evil intent publish the statement with reckless disregard for the truth 0 Either knew the statement was false or you should have known 0 Damages I Compensatory 0 Designed to compensate you for actual loss I Punitive 0 Designed to punish the media 0 Designed to warn other media not to do this 0 Strict Liability I If you re a private citizen the judge will order the jury to assume fault I A public gure must In order to sustain the libel judgmentget the money you have to show fault o Defenses 0 Major I Truth 0 The only true defense 0 Plaintiff must show the elements of libel are present 0 Defendant must prove the statements are true according to the rules of evidence 0 If the statement is true then they motives for publication are irrelevant o If they statement is false then the key issue becomes fault negligence or malice I Privilege 0 Types 0 Absolute 0 Qualified 0 Senator William Proxmire s Golden Fleece Award 0 Section 315 Privilege I Fair Comment 0 There is no such thing as a false opinion o Protects the expression of opinion about the public performance of those who voluntarily place themselves before the public 0 Protects expressions if 0 The expression is based on fact 0 The expression is a critique of public performance not private life 0 Minor I Neutral Reporting Right of Reply Consent Statute of Limitations 0 You have 366 days from date of libel in TN 0 Cases 0 New York Times vs Sullivan I 376 US 254 84 S Ct 710 1964 o Controlling media cases on libel o Heed their Rising Voices 0 Montgomery County Sheriff urging civil rights demonstrators to disperse in March 1960 0 Curtis Publishing Co vs Butts I 388 US 130 87 S Ct 1975 1967 I The Saturday evening post I Bear Bryant throw AlabamaGeorgia Game Associated Press vs Walker I 388 US 130 87 S Ct 1975 1967 I Walker Segregationist I Would have to show malice since he was a public figure 0 Rosenbloom v Metromedia I Smut Peddlers I Involved in a matter of public importance 0 Gertz v Welch I 418 US 323 1974 I Gertz had not thrust himself into the vortex of public opinion 0 Time v Firestone I 424 US 448 1976 0 Herbert v Lando I 441 US 153 1979 0 Most serious and dangerous of the libel decisions 0 Barry Lando 7 Senior Producer 60 minutes 0 0 Privacy 7 The right to be left alone 0 Background 0 Issues I Privacy in American life 0 Personal Privacy 0 Right to be left alone 0 Right to control your personhood 0 Location Privacy 0 Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in a certain location 43911 amendment does not protect acts tems information one knowingly exposes to the public Technological advances reduce privacy of location Cell phone GPS EZPasses etc 0 Information Privacy 0 The privacy of information about you I How it is obtained I How it is organized I Who has access I How is it protected 0 0 Rights vs Laws Invasion of Solitude 0 Right to be left alone 0 Wiretapping 0 Listening to private conversations 0 Photography Publication of Private Matters 0 Some things are meant to be private medical records etc o The Truth Can Hurt 0 Public Records False Light 0 Tell the truth but creates a false impression about you 0 Photography 0 Fictionalization Intentional In iction of Emotional Distress o Intentionally try to harm 0 Larry Flint 7 Jerry Falwell 7 Hustler Magazine Misappropriation 0 Using your name or likeness for commercial gain without your permission 0 Name 0 Likeness Image Right to Publicity 0 You have the right to control your own name and image 0 Bela Lugosi o Dracula 0 Hugo Zacchini 0 Human Cannonball o The Lone Ranger 0 Clayton Moore amp Jack Wrather 0 Good V Evil 0 Paladin 0 CBS V DeCosta o Carson V Here s Johnny 1983 0 News Value vs Misappropriation I How much is your dead name worth 0 Defenses I Newsworthiness I Consent 0 Cases I Sidis vs FR Publishing I Time vs Hill 0 Controlling Privacy Case 0 In order to sustain a privacy action you have to show malice in part of the media 0 Applied the Malice ruling from Sullivan Cant audio record cops 7 freedom of press 2311 Media Law 0 Sir William Blacksotne and the Commentaries 0 Most important legal treatise in the English language 0 Subsequent Punishment 0 Current Issues in Prior Restraint 0 Movies and Music I The government can t stop you from making the movie but they can pick and choose to the eXtent ofwhat they ll help with you 0 Cases and Comments 0 Near vs Minnesota 1931 I Prior restraint does not depend on truth I The state cannot restrain your publication 0 Organization for a Better Austin vs Keefe 1971 I quotSo long as the means are peaceful the communication need to meet standards ofacceptability o Selective Prior Restraint 0 Aviation Week and Space Technology 0 Progressive o AWampST and the SR71 0 US vs Progressive 1979 0 Got an injunction to stop publication 3d 415 Third series F Supp District court F Federal court USC United States Code Sections change so there is no page numbers in USC Who wrote commentaries Philosophical Positions Constitutional Law The Top A court decision is common law FCC would pass administrative law Congress makes statutory law Media wants strict scrutiny College wants Fundamental right free speech Court wants consistent decision Marbury V Madison Taking action aginst the state treason Speech against the state sedition Speech against the soveirgn seditious libel Smith Act statutory law as passed by congress that made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government Near v Minnesota Prior restraint does NOT depend on the truth CovaX v Cooper controlling time place and manner Southeastern promotions v Conrad Texas vs Iohnson Flag burning case Barnes vs Glenn Theatre nude dancing is not quotexpressive activity In airport can distribute but not solicit Westside Comm Schools V First Amendment case that is not a speech case establishment clause School press who has the most protection Public college with independent paper 31511 Media Law 0 Defamation 0 Private citizens 0 Public offices 0 Public figures 0 Libel Libel Per Se 0 Definition any false statement that tends to I Bring a person into public hatred contempt ridicule I Cause a person to be shunned or avoided I Injuries a person in their business or occupation o It is libelous per se if any of the following conditions eXist I You can accuse someone ofa crime and the person is innocent I Statements or insinuations or insanity or loathsome disease I Statements or assertions ofa lack of capacity to conduct business or profession o Libel for Private Citizen 0 Publication identification and defamation o Libel for Public Official or Public Figure 0 Publication identification defamation and malice 3111 Media Law 0 Broadcasting 0 Federal Communications Commission I Philosophical Background 0 Public Interest Convenience and Necessity Something that is in the public interest convenience and necessity 0 FCC regulations do NOT apply to cable and satellite but are generally followed by cable and satellite companies 0 Scarcity vs Access Broadcasters only have certain amount of space in spectrum before they start to interfere with each other people who want to broadcast can t broadcast due to spectrum space Technology vs Content FCC regulates technology but not content this is bologna o By regulating technology FCC by default regulates content I Rules and Regulations 0 Wireless Ship Act 1910 0 Required all ships that had so many passengers to have a wireless radio and operator 0 Radio Act 1912 0 Radio Act 1927 0 Communications Act 1934 0 Telecommunications Act 1996 I Fairness Doctrine 0 Public right to be informed o Stations should produce programs on controversial issues 0 Right of reply from opposing points ofview o Ascertain to compile I John Banzhaf and the Cigarette Commercials 0 How to change the media 0 Monitor the media 0 Find an applicable law I Cig ads was half the programming and half the income I Cig ads banned Ian 2 1971 I The law of unintended consequences I Stations avoided controversial programming rather than give community representatives airtime I 1985 stopped enforcing doctrine o Rejected the scarcity argument I Supreme Court struck down Fairness Doctrine in 2001 0 United States Code 21511 Media Law 0 Time Place and Manner 0 Content Based vs Content Neutral 0 Symbolic Speech 0 Public Facilities and the Public Forum 0 Time Place and Manner o The Brandenburg Decision 0 Judicial Review 0 Contentneutral regulations playing music in the KUC too loud I Receive Intermediate Scrutiny o Contentbased regulations were gonna ban quotthatquot kind ofmusic I Receive Strict Scrutiny o Viewpointbased regulations this is good or bad I Unconstitutional 0 Public Forums 0 Traditional public forum I Streets parks and other public places 0 Limited or designated or public forum I Property that government intentionally designates for public discourse o Nonpublic forum I Property that is neither traditionally open nor dedicated by policy to public discourse eX a military base O O O 0 Cases and Issues I Kovacs vs Cooper 1949 sets the standard for time place and manner 0 Sound trucks may broadcast political and commercial messages but not in a quotloud and raucous manner I Time place and manner regulations are reasonable Southeastern Promotions vs Conrad 1975 I Rejection of application was a prior restraint lacking any procedural safeguards Texas vs Johnson 1989 I Burned a ag I quotVoid for Vagueness Barnes vs Glenn Theatre 1991 I Nude dancing in a nightclub is not quotexpressivequot activity Krishna Consciousness vs Lee 1992 Lee vs Krishna Consciousness 199 2 A publiclyairport is not a quotpublic forum A ban in solicitation is valid A ban on distribution of literature in an airport is invalid 12511 Media Law 0 Interpreting the Constitution 0 O O O O Absolutist take the literal words and apply those Preferred Position the First Amendment has a PREFFERED POSITION over the other amendments Presumption of Constitutionality if Congress passes a law we PRESUME that Congress knew what they were doing and that the law is constitutional Compelling State Interest the state has a COMPELLING INTEREST to do what it s doing and this interest has precedence over other priorities OverBreadth the law that we ve enacted is doing more than what we intended o Uh Oh You Lose 0 O Injunctions and Restraining Orders I Injunctions Issued in equity issued to both parties 0 Temporary maintain status quo 0 Permanent issued after a trial I Restraining Order issued eX parte issued to one party Summary judgment I Occurs before a trial takes place I judge issues a final ruling I Both sides want a summary judgment 0 Trials and Appeals I Trial Court vs Appellate Court 0 Facts vs Law I Federal Courts US Supreme Court US District Courts Civil or Criminal case I I I Court of Appeals I Administrative Agencies FBI CIA FTC I State Supreme Court I Lowes State Courts Civil or Criminal case 0 Where Are We 0 Tennessee I Knoxville East I Memphis West I Nashville Middle 0 6th Federal Circuit Cincinnati 0 US Supreme Court 3d 415 Third series F Supp District court F Federal court USC United States Code Sections change so there is no page numbers in USC Who wrote commentaries Philosophical Positions Constitutional Law The Top A court decision is common law FCC would pass administrative law Congress makes statutory law Media wants strict scrutiny College wants Fundamental right free speech Court wants consistent decision Marbury V Madison Taking action aginst the state treason Speech against the state sedition Speech against the soveirgn seditious libel Smith Act statutory law as passed by congress that made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government Near v Minnesota Prior restraint does NOT depend on the truth CovaX v Cooper controlling time place and manner Southeastern promotions v Conrad Texas vs Iohnson Flag burning case Barnes vs Glenn Theatre nude dancing is not quotexpressive activity In airport can distribute but not solicit 11811 Media Law 0 The main thing is the main thing 0 Aristotle on the Law 0 Reason without passion 0 Reason without desire 0 Marcus Tullius Cicero 0 De Legibus the law I Ius civile the civil law jurisdictional law I Ius gentium the law of the genus law of the nation I Ius naturale the natural law US is built on the natural law theory you re born with certain rights life liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness I quotIgnorance to the law is no excuse 0 Basic Issues in the Law 0 Problem of Knowledge through logic through intuition 0 Problem of Conduct establishes rules 0 Problem of Government controls the ow of knowledge able as individual to try to change the ow of knowledge 0 Why Do We Do What We Do 0 Morality right and wrong 0 Behavior actions 0 Legality legislated permission to act
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
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'