First Amendment Status of Cable TV v. Broadcast Electronic media content can be viewed differently according to personal opinions, but the First Amendment Rights of the United States Constitution lay the foundation for the legal system that is to be followed. These rights form a guide that help citizens have a stronger grasp on what is and isn’t acceptable within the eye of the law. Narrowing down to electronic media content, there has been a rise of tension involving first amendment rights of content regulations. The spectrum scarcity rationale has made it possible to control licensing schemes, along with direct content control to make sure rules are being followed according to the First Amendment. The differences between cable TV versus broadcasting are similar, yet contrasting. Broadcasting involves specific rules and regulations that must be followed. The paramount justification for regulating broadcast is the scarcity rationale. The radio spectrum is extremely large, and cannot assist the needs of everyone who wants to broadcast. The spectrum as a whole relies on the government to manage and operate it. It is up to them to decide what broadcasters will best serve the public. A scarcity rationale case, NBC v. United States arose when regulations and restrictions were put on radio stations that were to protect “public interest.” Radio Networks proceeded to test the guidelines and licensing laws, resulting in the FCC gaining strong power over regulations of the radio spectrum. Although the Communications Act provides equal opportunities to all candidates with equivalent broadcast time, it still did not confine the FCC from having overall control. The 1969 case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC was the landmark decision ... ... middle of paper ... ...erators like the print media in accordance to the First Amendment protection. In 1994, the Supreme Court found the proper standard for the cable medium. Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC (Turner I), the court ruled that cable TV regulations should be inspected under the same First Amendment standards that were set forth in O’Brien case. If the system regulations are not content based, there is a chance of being upheld in court. Content-based is a difficult issue to sort. The case that represents this topic the best is City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. This case showed that cable operators are entitled to first amendment rights; there can't be a single franchise over an entire city. Works Cited Zelezny, John D., Communications Law 6th edition School of Journalism and Communication, Broadcasting: The First Amendment, journalism.uoregon.edu
Michael Parenti (2002) declares media in the United States is no longer “free, independent, neutral and objective.” (p. 60). Throughout his statement, Parenti expresses that media is controlled by large corporations, leaving smaller conglomerates unable to compete. The Telecommunications Act, passed in 1996, restricted “a single company to own television stations serving more than one-third of the U.S. public,” but is now overruled by greater corporations. (p. 61). In his opinion, Parenti reveals that media owners do not allow the publishing of stories that are not beneficial and advantageous. Parenti supports his argument very thoroughly by stating how the plutocracy takes control over media in multiple ways: television, magazines, news/radio broadcasting, and other sources.
Simones, A. (1995). Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. October 27, 1995. Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University.
Over the centuries, the media has played a significant role in the shaping of societies across the globe. This is especially true of developed nations where media access is readily available to the average citizen. The media has contributed to the creation of ideologies and ideals within a society. The media has such an effect on social life, that a simple as a news story has the power to shake a nation. Because of this, governments around the world have made it their duty to be active in the regulation and control of media access in their countries. The media however, has quickly become dominated by major mega companies who own numerous television, radio and movie companies both nationally and internationally. The aim of these companies is to generate revenue and in order to do this they create and air shows that cater to popular demand. In doing so, they sometimes compromise on the quality of their content. This is where public broadcasters come into perspective.
All in all i feel the govt. ought to regulate cable, telephones, and broadcasting as natural monopolies as a result of it's usually most effective to maintain natural monopolies, if they honestly ar natural monopolies, however subject them to some variety of government regulation with relation to costs, quality of service, etc. the rationale for not breaking it up is, of course, by definition, the actual fact that a natural monopoly will attain a lower cost than might competitive companies within the same trade. This contrasts with the case for different kinds of monopolies, that it's typically most effective for them to be variable into competitive companies.
In this paper, I will explain why public support is important, but not essential for the Public Broadcasting Service to fulfill its mission to provide alternative programming to the American public. I will show how public broadcasting would exist without the support of the federal government, and then explain why the positive externalities created by public broadcasting lead to market failure and suggest that government support of PBS is in the best interest of society.
First Amendment protections were upheld in the case of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) (Reno, 1997). The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was found to violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech. In appealing the CDA, appellees were hoping that the court would determine that the CDA violated both First and Fifth Amendment rights. While the court agreed that the CDA violated First Amendment rights, they did not rule on the issue of Fifth Amendment rights violations. Both constitutional and criminal issues were being addressed in this appeal.
Case 5.3: Getting the Message (Northouse, 2013) demonstrates an example of situational management. In summary, Ann Calbera is a program manager of a college campus radio station (WCBA). The radio station has a strong pipeline of student workers who value the media experience from working at the station. As a program manager, Ann is well respected, takes great pride in developing relationships with the student workers and allows them to be creative which the students respond positively to leadership style. However, the student workers have a lack of understanding on how their behavior negatively impacts the station and violates FCC rules by which the station is governed by. Even though Ann provides the students with a detailed policy and procedures handout, FCC violations still occur on a regular basis which result in illegal practices and consequences.
The United States Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC, introduced the Fairness Doctrine to make broadcasters report controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was equally balanced, honest, and fair. Broadcasting companies were required to provide a certain amount of airtime reporting accurate and fair information both for and against public issues. Broadcasters were not required to provide equal time for opposing views, but were required to present opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters were received broader boundaries as how to how they were to provide those opposing views. Because under the constitutional right of free speech, the government wanted to insure that broadcasting companies provided both accurate and fair information from both sides of the viewpoint.
The First Amendment protects the right of freedom of speech, which gradually merges into the modern perspective of the public throughout the history and present. The restriction over the cable TV and broadcast media subjected by the Federal Communications Commission violates the freedom of speech, irritating the dissatisfied public by controlling over what can be said on the air. Should the FCC interfere with the free speech of media? The discretion of content being presented to the public should not be completely determined by the FCC, but the public in its entirety which enforces a self-regulation with freedom and justice, upholding and emphasizing the freedom of speech by abolishing the hindrance the FCC brought.
Head, Tom . "Radio Censorship." About.com Civil Liberties. About.com, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
The CRTC regulates and supervises all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system and requires broadcasters to comply with its regulations. We should point out, however, that the CRTC is not a board of censors. We do not have the authority to tell broadcasters what they can broadcast, nor can we act pre-emptively before a program has been aired. (CTRC)
Zelezny, J. (2011). Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. Boston, MA: Wadsworth-Cengage Learning.
In the early 1970s, the FCC continued it's restrictive policies by enacting regulations that limited the ability of cable operators to offer movies, sporting events, and syndicated programming. The freeze on cable's development lasted until 1972, when a policy of gradual cable deregulation led to, among other things, modified restrictions on the importation of distant signals.
I believe these regulations on content are outdated. The differences between the broadcast and cable television network shows illustrate one of the massive complications for content regulation. Shows such as Sons of Anarchy, Dexter, The Sopranos and Weeds, can thrive because it is not bound to the same standards and practices of broadcast networks. Professor Robert Thompson, the founding director of the Bleier Center for Television and Popular Culture at Syracuse University, said “If you look at the overall landscape and go to the best stuff out there, and let’s take the last five years or so, just what FX, AMC, HBO and Showtime have been doing […] these shows are so much better than anythi... ...
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?