REGULATION OF BROADCASTING
Difference between print and broadcast
|
|
BROADCAST |
|
Miami Herald v. Tornillo |
Red Lion v. FCC |
|
no compelled publication |
Fairness Doctrine |
|
Plaintiff successfully challenged Fla. stat that required newspapers to print free replies by pol. candidates the paper had attacked. |
Plaintiff was required to give radio time to person the manager had attacked personally on the radio. |
WHY?
Spectrum Scarcity, the physical limitations in the broadcast spectrum
Govt can't keep someone from starting a newspaper; it CAN limit number of stations that b'cast
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
Opportunity to rebut personal attack
"Personal attack policy" one of few remnants of Fairness Doctrine (ousted in 1987)
Requires b'casters to provide diverse viewpoints on controversial public issues
Regulation upheld: station must offer free time for reply. Must also send a tape, transcript or broadcast summary to the person attacked.
BUT
C.B.S. v. Democratic National Committee (1973)
First Amendment does not require b'casters to provide airtime to specific individuals or groups who want to present a point of view on public issues.
REGULATION OF POLITICAL CANDIDATE PROGRAMMING
1. Equal Opportunities Rule: requires b'cast stations to provide time for political candidate if it has given time for opponent
2. Candidate access rule: to provide reasonable amounts of time for candidates for FEDERAL office
Limitation of Broadcaster Censorship of Political Content
Broadcaster has NO control over content of programming aired by political candidates, even if statements are racist, vulgar or defamatory.
SO: broadcasters are not responsible for libel by candidates; compare newspapers
Obscene, indecent and profane programming
Obscenity under Miller prohibited but indecency is restricted to hours when children are not expected to be watching
Indecency definition: depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
Sct said FCC can regulate indecent b'casts w/o violating First Amendment
Rationale:
1. broadcasting is intrusive, even into home where "the individual's right to be let alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder"
2. uniquely accessible to children, even those who cannot read
Regulation justified because of societal interests in protecting children and supporting parental authority and spectrum scarcity.
Channeling Indecency
Safe harbor: shields children from offensive programming but allows adults access to constitutionally protected speech
REGULATION OF CABLE AND NEW ELECTRONIC MEDIA
|
|
BROADCAST |
CABLE |
INTERNET |
|
|
Limitations |
unlimited |
spectrum scarcity |
unlimited channels |
unlimited |
|
Cost |
nominal |
free |
paid for |
paid for |
|
Acquisition |
purchase daily/subscribe |
pervasive |
solicited |
solicited |
|
Accesibility to kids |
have to read |
"uniquely" -- v-chip |
lock boxes |
screening software |
Access Channels
Allows local govts to require set-asides from PEG as part of franchise agreement
Congress intended local govts to control content of govt access, but NOT public and educational
Missouri Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kansas City, 723 F. Supp. 1347 (W.D.Mo. 1989)
City and cable co illegally eliminated the access channel and substituted a channel with programming controlled by cable op