MEDIA LAW SEMINAR – SPRING 2016
LAW 851.512
Thursday, 6:15-9 p.m., AL602
Syllabus
Instructor: Prof. Eric B. Easton
E-mail: eeaston@ubalt.edu
Texts: Lively et al., First Amendment Anthology; Friendly, Minnesota Rag; Lewis, Make
No Law; Lessig, Code v. 2.0. Readings to be assigned.
Office: AL526 Office Hours: Thursda, 5-6 p.m.; any time by appointment.
Phone: (410) 837-4874 Course Website: TWEN
Media Law Seminar will meet once each week for approximately three hours on
Thursday evenings. Students will submit a 25-page scholarly paper that meets the upperlevel writing requirement. Topics are due by Jan. 28; outlines by Feb. 18, first drafts by
March 31, and final papers by April 28. Eighty percent of the course grade will be based
on the final paper. All materials will be turned in through the TWEN site.
All students will be required to prepare and turn in a brief (2-page) summary of
the reading each week. Each student will be assigned to prepare a detailed summary of
the reading for parts of at least two classes and to lead the class discussion on those
topics. Twenty percent of the course grade will be based on in-class performance.
Toward the end of the semester, part of each class will be devoted to presentation
of student research papers.
NOTICE: THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT SOME OF THESE CLASSES MUST BE
CONDUCTED ASYNCHRONOUSLY ON LINE THROUGH THE TWEN SITE. I
WILL NOTIFY YOU IF AND WHEN THIS SITUATION MATERIALIZES.
Week Topic/Reading
1
First Amendment History –
Lively, pp. 23-43;
De Libellis Famosis,
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapt
er=106331&layout=html&Itemid=27.
2
Prior Restraints –
Minnesota Rag, including Near v. Minnesota therein;
Lively, pp. 67-81;
P&G v. Bankers Trust, 78 F.3d 219 (1996);
Zyprexa Litigation, et al., In re Injunction, 474 F. Supp. 2d 385 (2007).
3
Commercial Speech –
Lively, pp. 171-195;
Central Hudson v. NYPSC, 447 U.S. 557 (1980);
Kasky v. Nike, 45 P.3d 243 (Cal. 2002).
4
Sexual Speech –
Lively, pp. 222-229, 235-243;
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973);
American Booksellers v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985);
Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) .
5
Defamation –
Make No Law, including New York Times v. Sullivan therein;
Lively, pp. 131-144, 149-159;
Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 561 (1997);
Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997);
Indep. Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 407 Md. 415 (2009).
6
Privacy, Publishing Torts –
Lively, pp. 304, 144-149;
Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524 (1989);
Hustler v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988);
Rice v. Paladin Enters., 128 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 1998);
Susan B. Anthony Lists v. Dreihaus,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7417541104051671129&q=susan+b.+antho
ny+list+v.+dreihaus&hl=en&as_sdt=4,111,126.
7
Newsgathering Torts – Lively, pp. 60-66;
Cohen v. Cowles Media, 501 U.S. 663 (1991);
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999);
Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC, 194 F.3d 505 (1999);
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
8
Broadcasting Regulation –
Lively, pp. 313-348;
Red Lion v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969);
Miami Publishing v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974);
FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978);
Becker v. FCC, 95 F.3d 75 (D.C.Cir.1996);
FCC v. Fox TV Stations, 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009).
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, 712 F.3d 626 (2013)
Spring Break
9
Cable –
Lively, pp. 338-346;
Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (I), 512 U.S. 622 (1994);
Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (II), 520 U.S. 180 (1997);
Denver Area ETC v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996).
10
Internet Regulation –
Code v. 2.0;
Lively, pp. 369-379;
Nat’l Cable v. Brand X, 545 U.S. 967 (2005);
Julius Genachowski, “Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation,
Opportunity, and Prosperity,” Sept. 21, 2009,
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-293568A1.pdf;
FCC, “In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet Broadband Industry Practices,”
NPRM, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/ edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf,
Introduction and Executive Summary;
Randolph May, “An Immodest Proposal for Internet Regulation,
http://freestatefoundation.blogspot.com/2009/09/ immodest-proposal-for-internet.html.
11
Access to Information –
Houchins v. KQED, 438 U.S. 1 (1978);
Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589 (1978);
DOD v. ACLU, 543 F.3d 59 (2008), vacated by 2009 WL 4110978 (2009);
Wikileaks Story: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html.
[presentations]
12
Covering the Courts –
Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976);
Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980);
Press Enterprise v. Superior Court (II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
[presentations]
13
Reporter’s Privilege, Newsroom Warrants –
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972);
Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. §9-112;
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
[presentations]
14
Copyright –
Digital Copyright;
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512, 17 U.S.C. 1201;
Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2001);
RIAA v. Verizon, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C.Cir. 2003);
Sony v. Tenenbaum, 2009 WL 4547019 (D.Mass. Dec. 7, 2009);
Google Books Settlement:
https://sites.google.com/a/pressatgoogle.com/googlebookssettlement/
[presentations]