Slide 1 Joseph R. Dominick University of Georgia--Athens © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 2 Part IV Regulation of the Mass Media © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 3 Chapter 15 Formal Controls: Laws, Rules, Regulations Chapter Outline The Press, the Law, and the Courts Protecting News Sources Covering the Courts A Reporter’s Access to Information Defamation Invasion of Privacy Copyright Obscenity and Pornography Regulating Broadcasting Regulating Cable TV The Telecommunications Act of 1996 Regulating Advertising © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 4 The Press the Law and the Courts Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. – The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 5 The Press the Law and the Courts Prior Restraint the government attempts to censor the press before something is published Two cases Near v. Minnesota (1920s) The Pentagon Papers (1970s) Secretary McNamara’s study of the Vietnam War U.S. Attorney Mitchell asks for prior restraint Newspapers published portions in turns Supreme Court rules in favor of papers (1971) © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 6 Protecting News Sources The Reporter’s Privilege Paul Branzburg of the Louisville CourierJournal (1969) U.S. Supreme Court: 1st Amendment does not prevent questions about a criminal investigation Shield laws provide news-source protection Freelance Vanessa Leggett jailed for 168 days © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 7 Protecting News Sources Search and seizure an unannounced court-issued warrant to search for and seize a reporter’s notes Stanford Daily (1971) Clash between police and demonstrators Police with search warrant for photos of incident Search ruled legal in 1978 Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. AT&T (1974) New York Times and Myron Farber (1976) © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 8 Covering the Courts Free Press (1st) vs. Fair Trial (6th) Publicity before and during a trial Jury contamination Case of Dr. Sam Sheppard (1954) Case of Leslie Irvin (1961) Supreme Court’s 6 safeguards include Sequestering the jury Change of venue Injunctions against divulging information by Lawyers Witnesses Others © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 9 Covering the Courts Gag Rules Nebraska Press Association (1976) 1980s: jury selection open to the public 2002-2003: Philadelphia Inquirer’s post-trial interviews of jury Cameras and Microphones in the Courtroom 1930s Hauptmann / Lindbergh trial ABA passes Canon 35 of Code of Professional Ethics Estes case of 1965 Canon 3A(7) supersedes 35 (1972) 1981 Supreme Court decision © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 10 A Reporter’s Access to Information Freedom of Information Act (1966) Electronic Freedom of Information Act (1996) Sunshine Laws Patriot Act (2001) Government has more access to email and telephone records Easier to restrict access to official records Press cannot find out about FBI searches of book buying and borrowing records © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 11 Defamation Defamation law protects a person’s reputation Libel: Written defamation that tends to injure a person’s reputation or good name or diminish the esteem, respect, or goodwill due a person Slander: Spoken defamation Libel per se: Automatically libelous expressions such as “swindler” Libel per quod: Utterances that are not blatantly libelous, but libelous nevertheless © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 12 Defamation Proving that you’ve been defamed by the media 1) 2) 3) 4) You’ve been defamed and harmed by the statements You have been identified, not necessarily by name The statements have been published The media were at fault Fault or carelessness required 5) What was published or broadcast was false Burden of proof on the one who sues, if private person Quoting another is not sufficient defense © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 13 Defamation Three defenses against a libel suit Truth If true, no libel Difficult to prove Privilege Public’s right to know takes precedence Judicial proceedings, arrest warrants, grand jury indictments, legislative proceedings, public city council sessions Fair comment and criticism Invitation of public attention Opinion and criticism © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 14 Defamation Public Officials and Actual Malice New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Editorial advertising is protected by the 1st Amendment Even false statements may be protected if they concern a public official’s public conduct Public officials must prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice Actual malice – publishing a statement in “reckless disregard” or knowing it is false Firestone divorce in 1976 © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 15 Defamation Damages awarded in defamation suits Actual damages: the amount of money lost as a result of the defamation Punitive damages: awarded by juries with the intent of punishing media behavior Can be substantial ($20M against NBC) Must show the media acted with actual malice Internet defamation Carrier is not liable Publisher liable everywhere downloads are possible © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 16 Invasion of Privacy Right to Privacy Libel laws protect a person's reputation Libel involves publication of false material Right of privacy protects a person's peace of mind and feelings Invasion of privacy might be triggered by disclosing the truth. © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 17 Invasion of Privacy Ways in which mass media invade someone's privacy: Intruding upon a person's solitude or seclusion Unauthorized release of private information Publicizing people in a false light or creating a false impression of them Appropriation of a person's name or likeness for commercial purposes © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 18 Invasion of Privacy Trespass and the Press Unauthorized entry onto somebody else's territory No special First Amendment privilege for journalists Cases include Reporters entering with permission of a police officer Reporters accompanying the police into a private home Reporters following demonstrators onto company property Reporters accompanying police serving a search warrant Food Lion v. ABC (1996) © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 19 Copyright Copyright laws protect authors against unfair appropriation of their work For works created after January 1978, copyrights last life of author plus 70 years Works created before then are protected for a period of 95 years Copyright laws protect literary and dramatic manuscripts, music works, sound recordings, motion pictures, and TV programs Not protected are ideas, news, discoveries, or procedures © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 20 Copyright Fair use means someone can copy work for teaching, research, news reporting, etc. Qualifying factors Purpose of the use (profit vs. non-profit) Nature of the work Percentage of work copied Effect of use on potential market value of copyrighted work © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 21 Copyright 1995: Internet materials covered by copyright laws 1999: Napster sued by recording industry KaZaA and Grokster take up the Napster torch Industry sues 250+ individuals Digital Millennium Copyright Act stipulates that royalty obligation applies to Internet stations 2002 bill allows stations to negotiate fees with artists and recording companies © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 22 Obscenity and Pornography Obscenity not protected by 1st Amendment What is obscene? Hicklin Rule (1860s): a work is obscene if isolated passages tend to deprave or corrupt the mind of the most susceptible person Roth v. United States (1957) Average person Contemporary standards Dominant theme Prurient interests © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 23 Obscenity and Pornography Roth proved problematic Later decisions added “patently offensive” “utterly without redeeming social value” variable obscenity (1969) © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 24 Obscenity and Pornography Miller v. California (1973) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds the work as a whole appeals to prurient interest the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way certain sexual conduct that is specifically spelled out by state law the whole work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 25 Obscenity and Pornography 1988 – Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act Specifically mentions computers 1996 – Communications Decency Act Ruled unconstitutional Child Online Protection Act Blocked by appeals court Children’s Internet Protection Act Affects libraries that receive federal funds Ruled constitutional by U.S. Supreme Court (2003) © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 26 Regulating Broadcasting Radio Act of 1927 Airwaves belong to the public Broadcasters must be licensed Scarcity of the resource means more regulations Federal Communications Commission Doesn’t make laws; interprets them “…operating within the public interest…” Children’s Television Act Requires educational programming Limits commercial time during children’s programming © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 27 Regulating Broadcasting FCC Punitive Actions Fine a station up to $250,000 Renew a license on probation, usually a year Revoke or fail to renew a license 99.8% of all licenses are renewed © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 28 Regulating Broadcasting FCC Issues of Continuing Concern Indecent content banned between 6 AM and 10 PM Equal Opportunities Rule Bona fide candidates for public office 1 min 1 min x $/min x $/min Fairness Doctrine Not currently in force Broadcasters must present opposing viewpoints on controversial public matters © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 29 Regulating Cable TV 1950s: FCC says it has no say over cable 1960-1972: FCC writes series of regulations 1980s: Almost all regulations dropped Cable Communications Act of 1984 Operators decide rates and channels State and local governments grant franchises © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 30 Regulating Cable TV Cable TV Act of 1992 FCC regulates cable fees Cable must carry broadcast stations Broadcast can waive right if cable pays them Cable rates dropped by 17% Broadcast rights challenged in court 1994/1997: Supreme Court upholds “must carry” © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 31 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 No limit on radio stations that can be owned by one entity, up to 8 in one market No limit on TV stations that can be owned by one entity, but less than 35% of nation’s TV homes Telephone companies can do cable TV Cable TV companies can do telephone Deregulation of cable rates V-chip and ratings system © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 32 Regulating Advertising Deceptive advertising Until 1900s, caveat emptor FTC created in 1914 to clean up business practices 1938 Wheeler-Lea Act FTC enforcement Trade regulations that suggest guidelines Consent order – advertiser agrees to stop practice without admitting wrongdoing Cease-and-desist order – if company doesn’t comply at this stage, the FTC can also fine them © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Slide 33 Regulating Advertising Is your commercial speech protected by the 1st ? Use the Supreme Court’s 4-part test! Are Doesthe Does it involve the the state’s government state’s regulations unlawful regulation haveonly actually as activityasor substantial advance broad the necessary advertising interest government’s in to regulating promote that’sinterest? false the or misleading? the state’s speech? interest? © 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.