Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience
Download 385.78 Kb.
|
aff’d sub nom. Pub. Interest Research Group v. FCC, 522 F.2d 1060 (1st Cir. 1975).
NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Handling of Public Issues Under the Fairness Doctrine and the Public Interest Standards of the Communications Act, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 89 F.C.C.2d 916, 925 ¶ 23(1982). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Brent Buell, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 97 F.C.C.2d 55, 57 ¶ 8 (1984). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Am. Sec. Council Educ. Foundation v. FCC, 607 F.2d 438, 444 (D.C. Cir. 1979). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT This case arose when a Member of Congress from Hawaii who was the principle sponsor of legislation to limit strip mining asked West Virginia radio station to air an 11-minute tape advocating her position during the time the legislation was being considered by Congress and being presented to the President for his signature. When the station refused, the Member successfully brought her Fairness Doctrine complaint. Complaint of Representative Patsy Mink et al. Against Radio Station WHAR, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 F.C.C.2d 987 (1976). Somewhat curiously, one of the principal bases for granting her claim was the fact that the local newspaper had covered the story on its front page on nine days during the key eleven-day period when the legislation was being debated and subjected to a presidential veto. Id. at 995 ¶ 24. As Thomas Krattenmaker and Scot Powe point out, this rationale has the somewhat puzzling effect of allowing the fact that an issue is already being covered extensively in other media to oblige broadcasters to provide duplicate coverage. See Krattenmaker & Powe, supra note 22, at 247. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See 1985 Fairness Report, 102 F.C.C.2d at 188–90 ¶¶ 69–71; CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94, 187–88 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting) (“[U]nder the Fairness doctrine, broadcasters generally tend to permit only established—or at least moderated—views to enter the broadcast world’s ‘marketplace of ideas.’”); Brandywine-Main Line Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 473 F.2d 16, 78.62 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (Bazelon, C.J., dissenting) (“[C]ontroversial viewpoint[s] [are being screened out in favor of the dreary blandness of a more acceptable opinion”); Krattenmaker & Powe, supra note 22, at 248; Barron, supra note 334, at 14 (“On those issues which are unquestionably controversial, however, it is obvious that little or no editorializing is done.”). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See 1985 Fairness Report, 102 F.C.C.2d at 189 ¶ 71 & nn.168–169 (collecting cases). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 393 (1969); see also League, 468 U.S. at 378 n.12 (noting that “were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine ‘[has] the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing’ speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case”). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT 1985 Fairness Report, 102 F.C.C.2d at 164–88 ¶¶ 34–68. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See, e.g., _ Fang & _ Whelan, Survey of Television Editorials and Ombudsman Segments, 17 J. Broad. 363 (1973); see also Barron, supra note 334, at 12 (“Although the Mayflower ban was removed mover than a decade ago, editorializing by broadcast licensees has by no means become a prevalent practice.” (footnote omitted)). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Thomas W. Hazlett & David W. Sosa, Was the Fairness Doctrine a “Chilling Effect”? Evidence for the Post Deregulation Radio Market, 26 J. Legal Stud. 279 (1997). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Yoo, supra note 147, at 336–37; L.A. Powe, Jr., Scholarship and Markets, 56 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 172, 183 (1987). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Yoo, supra note 147, at 321; Stephen A. Gardbaum, Broadcasting, Democracy, and the Market, 82 Geo. L.J. 373, 386–87 (1993). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Lucas A. Powe, Jr., American Broadcasting and the First Amendment 109–10 (1987). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Fred Friendly, The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment 33–42 (1975). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Id. at 39. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Thomas W. Hazlett & David W. Sosa, “Chilling” the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting, 4 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 35, 47–50 (1998). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. 94, 155 (1973) (Douglas, J., concurring in the judgment). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Christopher S. Yoo, Architectural Censorship and the FCC, 78 S. Cal. L. Rev. 669 (2005). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT 1985 Fairness Report, 102 F.C.C.2d 192–94 ¶¶ 74–76; accord Brandywine-Main Line Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 473 F.2d 16, 78 n.62 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (Bazelon, C.J., dissenting) (“[T]he potential to subject the ‘fairness’ theory to political abuse is inherent in the operation of the doctrine.”). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Kreimer, supra note 8, at 27–33. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See id. at 41–79. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Yoo, supra note 370, at 713–25. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Christopher S. Yoo, Beyond Network Neutrality, 19 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 25 (2005). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT CBS v. DNC, 412 U.S. at 105. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Id. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Lessig, supra note 11, at 6. NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT See Jerome A. Barron, Access to the Press—A New First Amendment Right, 80 Harv. L. Rev. 1641 (1967) (providing the seminal statement of this position). NOTEREF _Ref238549241 \f \h \* MERGEFORMAT Yoo, supra note 147, at 334. Directory: faculty -> csyoo -> workingpapers faculty -> Handling Indivisibilities faculty -> Course overview faculty -> Curriculum vitae wei chen professor faculty -> Digital image warping faculty -> Samples of Elements Exam Question III contains All Prior Exam Qs III except faculty -> 【Education&Working Experience】 faculty -> References Abe, M., A. Kitoh and T. Yasunari, 2003: An evolution of the Asian summer monsoon associated with mountain uplift —Simulation with the mri atmosphere-ocean coupled gcm. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan, 81 faculty -> Ralph R. Ferraro Chief, Satellite Climate Studies Branch, noaa/nesdis faculty -> Unit IV text: Types of Oil, Types of Prices Grammar: that/those of, with revision workingpapers -> Cloud Computing: Architectural and Policy Implications Download 385.78 Kb. Share with your friends:
|