com/ topic/ federal-communications-commission>.)
DBS – Direct broadcast satellite – is a term used to refer to satellite television broadcasts intended for home reception.
(DBS. Wikipedia. 21 Nov. 2010. 10 Dec. 2010 <http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Direct-broadcast_satellite>.)
WBAI, a part of the Pacifica Radio Network, is a non-commercial, listener-supported radio station, broadcasting at 99.5 FM in New York City. Its programming is leftist, and a mixture of political news and opinion from a leftist perspective.
(WBAI. Wikipedia.10 Dec. 2010. <http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki>.)
I. Multiple Choice
Choose the alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question.
1. In an important censorship case, the Nixon administration tried to restrain publication of _____.
a. the Pentagon Papers b. "The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We're Telling It" c. the Progressive magazine d. none of the above
2. A _____ legally protects the rights of authors and producers to their published or unpublished works.
a. qualified privilege b. copyright c. libel d. shield law
3. Spurred by Jack Johnson's victory, in 1912 the government outlawed _____.
a. profanity in films b. transportation of boxing movies across state lines c. sacrilegious foreign films d. none of the above
4. The Supreme Court finally granted film the same speech protection as print and other forms of media after the New York Licensing Board banned the film _____.
a. Il Miracolo b. Gone with the Wind c. Gremlins d. none of the above
5. The _____ rating was appropriated as a promotional tool by the pornography industry.
a. X b. NC-17 c. R d. G
6. In which case did the Supreme Court argue that a newspaper had the right to publish what it chose?
a. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo b. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC c. WBAI v. FCC d. New York Times v. Red Lion Broadcasting
7. When commercial broadcasters asked the government for regulation of the airwaves, they were hoping to _____.
a. clear up technical problems b. get rid of amateur interference
c. clear up channel noise d. all of the above
8. In 1937, NBC was scolded by the FCC after broadcasting a comedy sketch featuring _____.
a. George Carlin b. Mae West c. Fred Cook d. Jack Valenti
9. _____ required stations to air controversial-issue programs and provide competing points of view.
a. the Communications Act of 1934 b. Section 315 c. the Fairness Doctrine d. all of the above
10. Which organization circulates material that has been banned or restricted in some countries over the Internet?
a. Google b. Digital Freedom Network c. Napster d. none of the above
11. _____ means that a reporter or editor knew a statement was false and printed it or broadcast it anyway.
a. Libel b. Actual malice c. Qualified privilege d. None of the above
12. Which court case set the contemporary definition of obscenity?
a. Miller v. California b. New York Times v. Sullivan c. Falwell v. Flynt d. Near v. Minnesota
13. What is the purpose of shield laws?
a. to prohibit the press from releasing information about important court cases b. to protect reporters from having to reveal their sources for controversial information c. to block controversial publications before they are distributed d. all of the above
14. During the late 1960s, Jack Valenti established _____.
a. the Motion Picture Production Code b. an industry board to rate movies c. the Mutual Film Company d. none of the above
15. Why did the government outlaw transportation of boxing movies across state lines?
a. because of the violence in these movies b. because of Johnson's race c. because of the Hollywood scandals d. all of the above
16. Which publication named performers, writers, and musicians who were sympathetic to communism?
a. the Miami Herald b. Red Channels c. the Moscow Times d. none of the above
17. In order to work in television or radio, blacklisted performers _____.
a. had to testify against other suspected communists b. needed the support of a sponsor c. took large pay cuts d. all of the above
18. In Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC, the Supreme Court sided with _____.
a. the FCC b. Red Lion Broadcasting c. the Miami Herald d. none of the above
19. According to a Supreme Court ruling, the FCC has the authority to stop broadcasters from airing adult content between _____ and _____.
a. 10 A.M./6 P.M. b. midnight/6 A.M. c. 3 P.M./6 P.M. d. 6 A.M./10 P. M.
20. What did antismoking activist John Banzhaf invoke to force cigarette advertising off television?
a. Section 315 b. the Fairness Doctrine c. the Communication Act of 1934 d. none of the above
(http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/mediaculture/pages/bcs-main.asp ? v =chapter&s =16000&n=00030&i=16030.01&o=|00020|0003 0|)
II. Summary
Summary 1 Read the summary of the section of Chapter 16 titled "The origins of free expression and a free press" and answer the multiple choice questions that follow.
The origins of free expression and a free press/Film and the First Amendment
In the United States, we often take for granted our rights of free speech, even as in many countries throughout the world citizens are jailed or killed for speech "violations." In the past decade, more than fifty journalists a year died in the line of duty. And when Americans have been surveyed about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the majority of respondents were unfamiliar with the amendment's wording and with the exact nature of the freedoms it grants. One key idea underlying the First Amendment stems from the essay Areopagitica by English poet John Milton, author of Paradise Lost. This essay opposed government licenses for printers — a standard practice used to control the circulation of ideas — and advocated a free press. Milton argued that all ideas, even false ones, should circulate freely in a democratic society. In 1695, England stopped licensing newspapers, and most of Europe followed.
Models for expression and speech
In 2004, the human rights organization Freedom House reported that about 73 percent of the world's people live in countries with a less than free press, and that 66 nations had virtually no press freedom. Four models for speech and journalism have been used to categorize differing ideas underlying free expression. These models include the authoritarian, communist, libertarian, and social-responsibility concepts, and have been used since the mid-1950s to distinguish levels of freedom granted to citizens. Given the diversity among nations, the experimentation of journalists, and the collapse of many communist press systems, these categories may not be as relevant as they once were; however, they are still useful terms for discussing the press and democracy.
The authoritarian model developed in sixteenth-century England around the same time as the printing press arrived, as the ruling class believed that the largely illiterate public needed guidance. Government criticism and public dissent were not tolerated and censorship was frequent. Printing licenses were issued primarily to publishers who were sympathetic to government and ruling-class agendas. There are many authoritarian systems operating today, especially in developing countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, where leaders believe that too much free speech could undermine the delicate stability of social and political infrastructures.
The communist or state model puts press control solely in the hands of the government. State leaders believe that they are enlightened and that the press should serve the common goals of the state. Although the communist model was in decline throughout the 1990s, it was still operating in China, Cuba, and North Korea, among other countries.
The libertarian model is the opposite of the state and authoritarian systems. Libertarians encourage government criticism and support the highest degree of freedom for individual speech and for the press. In North America and Europe, many political and alternative newspapers and magazines operate on such a model.
The social-responsibility model is the most popular model of mainstream journalism in the United States. These types of presses are usually privately owned ‒ which keeps them independent of government ‒ but function as the Fourth Estate, or as an unofficial branch of government that monitors the legislative, judicial, and executive branches for abuses of power.
Censorship as prior restraint
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has theoretically prohibited censorship, which the Supreme Court defines as prior restraint. Prior restraint means that courts and governments cannot block any publication or speech before it actually occurs on the principle that a law has not been broken until an illegal act has been committed. For example, in 1931 in Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court determined that a Minneapolis newspaper couldn't be stopped from publishing "scandalous and defamatory" material about police officials who were negligent in arresting local gangsters. The Court left open the idea that the media could be ordered to halt publication in exceptional cases, such as if an article threatened national security during a declared war.
An important censorship case was decided in 1971 when, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the New York Times and the Washington Post had a right to publish articles based on a top-secret government study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam since World War II. The study, nicknamed the Pentagon Papers, was leaked in 1971 by Daniel Ellsberg, a former Defense Department employee, with the Vietnam War still in progress. The Nixon administration tried to restrain publication of the documents, arguing that they posed a "clear and present danger" to national security.
A similar issue was involved in 1979 when the government sued the Progressive and asked a federal district court to block publication of a particular issue of the magazine. The Progressive, a national left-wing magazine, was planning to run an article called "The H-Bomb Secret: How We Got It, Why We're Telling It." The editor of the magazine sent a draft to the Department of Energy to verify technical portions of the article, and the Energy Department, believing the article contained data that might damage U.S. efforts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons, asked the magazine not to publish it. Judge Robert Warren, in an unprecedented decision, sided with the government, deciding "a mistake in ruling against the United States could pave the way for thermonuclear annihilation for us all." Though the government eventually dropped the case, it was the first time in American history that a prior restraint order stopped the initial publication of a controversial news report.
Unprotected forms of expression
Early in our nation's history, the Federalist Party, which controlled Congress, passed the Sedition Act. Led by President John Adams, the Federalists believed that defamatory articles might stir up discontent against the government, and this act was intended to curb criticism of an anticipated war against France. Twenty-five people were arrested and ten were convicted under the act before it expired in 1801 during Thomas Jefferson's presidency. Jefferson, who had challenged the act's constitutionality from the outset, pardoned all defendants convicted under the Sedition Act.
The federal government has created other laws like the Sedition Act, especially during times of war. For example, the Espionage Acts of 1917 and 1918 made it a federal crime to disrupt the nation's war efforts and were enforced during World Wars I and II. Additionally, over the years the courts have determined that some kinds of expression, such as false or misleading advertising and expressions that intentionally threaten public safety, do not merit protection as speech under the constitution.
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Socialist Party leader, Charles T. Schenck, for distributing leaflets during World War I that urged American men to protest the draft. This violation of the Espionage Act prompted Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes to interpret the First Amendment in this way: "The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." By establishing the "clear and present danger" criterion, the Supreme Court demonstrated the limits of the First Amendment. Several other kinds of expression are exceptions to the First Amendment, including copyright infringement, libel, invasion of privacy, and obscenity.
A copyright legally protects the rights of authors and producers to their published or unpublished writing, music, lyrics, TV programs, movies, or graphic art designs. Recently, file swapping on the Internet raised a new set of copyright concerns. These concerns were addressed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which outlaws technology or actions that circumvent copyright protection systems.
Libel, or the defamation of character in written or broadcast expression, is another form of expression that is not protected as speech under the First Amendment. It is generally defined as a false statement that holds a person up to public ridicule, contempt, or hatred, or injures a person's business or occupation. The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case set the standard for libel law. It stemmed from a full-page advertisement placed in the New York Times by the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King Jr. and the Struggle for Freedom in the South, which criticized the law-enforcement tactics of southern cities, including Montgomery, Alabama. The city commissioner of Montgomery, L. B. Sullivan, sued the Times for libel, claiming the ad defamed him indirectly. Alabama courts awarded Sullivan $500,000, but their decision was unanimously reversed by the Supreme Court, which held that Alabama libel law violated the Times's First Amendment rights.
In the Sullivan decision, the Supreme Court established the difference between public officials (in later cases, public figures were added) and private individuals. Public officials are people with substantial responsibilities in conducting government affairs, such as senators, mayors, police detectives, and city managers. While private individuals have to prove that the statement made about them was false, that damages or injury occurred, and that the publisher or broadcaster was negligent, public officials must prove all of those things plus actual malice on the part of the news medium. Actual malice means that the reporter or editor knew the statement was false and printed or broadcast it anyway, or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. Because actual malice is hard to prove, it remains difficult for public figures to win libel suits. The Supreme Court has distinguished two categories of public figures: 1) public celebrities or people who "occupy positions of such pervasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes," and 2) individuals who have thrown themselves into the middle of "a significant public controversy."
The best defense against libel in U.S. civil court has been the truth. If libel defendants can demonstrate that they printed or broadcast true statements, it usually bars plaintiffs from recovering damages. Another defense against libel is qualified privilege. Qualified privilege is an extension of the absolute privilege prosecutors receive in a court of law when they make potentially damaging statements about a defendant's reputation. For example, when prosecutor Marcia Clark accused O. J. Simpson of being a murderer and he was later acquitted, she was protected from libel by absolute privilege. Similarly, the reporters who printed or broadcast her statement were protected from libel. Reporters are allowed to report judicial or legislative proceedings even though the statements being reported may be libelous. Yet another defense against libel is opinion and fair comment. Generally, libel applies only to misstatements of facts, and not opinion. However, as some cases can turn on the hazy line between fact and opinion, lawyers often advise journalists to first set forth the facts on which a viewpoint is based and then state their opinion based on those facts. One of the most famous cases of opinion and fair comment was Falwell v. Flynt, when conservative religious leader Jerry Falwell sued Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt for libel after the November 1983 issue of Hustler spoofed Falwell in a parody of a Campari vermouth ad. Though the jury rejected the $45 million libel suit, they did award Falwell $200,000 for emotional distress in an unprecedented verdict. The ruling was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court in 1988. The Court suggested that even though the parody might have caused emotional pain, denying the right to publish it would be a violation of the First Amendment.
Although the right of privacy protects an individual's peace of mind and personal feelings, in general the news media have been granted protections under the First Amendment to subject public figures to the spotlight. Some public figures have been able to legally seek relief. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, for example, successfully sought court orders to keep photographers at a minimum distance. Generally, however, the names and pictures of private individuals and public figures can usually be used without their consent in most news stories. Courts have even ruled that accurate reports of criminal and court records, including the identification of rape victims, do not normally constitute privacy invasion (though most newspapers and broadcast stations follow ethical codes that protect victims and defendants, especially in cases of rape or child abuse).
Invasion of privacy addresses a person's right to be left alone, without his or her name, image, or daily activities becoming public property. The most common types of invasion of privacy are: 1) intrusion ‒ the use of unauthorized tape recorders, wiretaps, microphones, or other surveillance equipment to secretly record a person's private affairs; 2) the publication of private matters - unauthorized disclosure of private statements about a person's health, sexual activities, or economic status; and 3) the unauthorized appropriation of a person's name or image for advertising or other commercial benefit.
While privacy and libel issues are part of civil law, obscenity issues are often prosecuted as criminal offenses. The problem with obscenity law is that it is hard to come to agreement on how to define an obscene work. In the 1860s, a court could judge an entire book obscene if it contained a single passage believed capable of corrupting a person. This changed in the 1930s because of the novel Ulysses by James Joyce. The book was originally banned from publication in the United States, as it contained four-letter words and was considered an obscene work. However, in 1933 a U.S. judge ruled that it was an important literary work and Random House agreed to publish it.
Several important court cases have tried to define obscenity. In the 1957 landmark case Roth v. United States, the Supreme Court offered this test for obscenity: if to an "average person," applying "contemporary standards," the thrust or theme of the material, "taken as a whole," was intended to "incite lust." The Roth definition was further refined during the 1973 Miller v. California case, which involved sanctions for using the mail to promote or send pornography. After this case, the Supreme Court argued that an obscene work had to meet three criteria: 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the material as a whole appeals to prurient interest; 2) the material depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and 3) the material, as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. This refinement contained two important ideas: 1) it acknowledged that different communities and regions of the country have different values and standards, and 2) it required that work be judged as a whole ‒ that publishers couldn't insert a political essay or literary poem to demonstrate that their publications contained redeeming features.
|
