Ralph E. Hanson, Second Edition
HomeWeblogChaptersCh. 1: Living in a Media WorldCh. 2: The Media Business: Consolidation, Globalization, and the Long TailCh. 3: Mass Communication Effects: How Society and Media InteractCh. 4: Books: The Birth of the Mass MediaCh. 5: Magazines: The Power of Words and ImagesCh. 6: Newspapers: Reflection of a Democratic SocietyCh. 7: Sound: Music and Talk Across MediaCh. 8: Movies: Mass-Producing EntertainmentCh. 9: Television: Broadcast, Cable and BeyondCh. 10: The Internet: Mass Communication Gets PersonalCh. 11: Advertising: Selling a MessageCh. 12: Public Relations: Manufacturing the NewsCh. 13: Media Law: Free Speech and FairnessCh. 14: Media Ethics: Truthfulness, Fairness, and Standards of DecencyCh. 15: Global Media: Communication Around the WorldAbout the BookAbout the AuthorHelp
StudyQuizFlashcardsCrosswordExercisesExplore

Chapter 13: Media Law

Study

The First Amendment protects a wide-range of freedoms: some popular, others not. Even certain instances of false expression are protected. The historical legal battles highlighted in Chapter 13 have shaped the modern legal system, clarified what the media can and cannot publish, and defined the protections afforded by citizens of the United States.

The Zenger case established truth as an absolute defense against libel. The Alien and Sedition Acts in the early years of the American republic punished those who spoke out against the government. Later sedition statutes were enforced during the first World War before the free speech provisions were removed shortly thereafter.

A libelous statement must contain defamation, identification, and publication. The media's defense against libel is truth, privilege, or a statement of opinion. New York Times v. Sullivan established the protection of false statements made in good faith and the grounds for claiming actual malice.

Individuals have protection from invasion of privacy under multiple amendments. The four types of legal protection against invasion of privacy include intrusion, false light, embarrassment, and misappropriation. Privacy laws in Europe range from strict fines and penalties to no legal restrictions whatsoever. As recently as 2000, after the death of Princess Diana, the British Parliament passed an act aimed to protect the privacy of British citizens.

The media circus that surrounded the Sam Sheppard murder case forced the Supreme Court to make some serious recommendations in how to provide a fair trial. The United States v. Noriega case forced the U.S. government to apply for a restraining order against CNN. What started out as a shaky relationship between the media and the courts has evolved into an acceptance of courtroom cameras as inconspicuous elements of the modern courtroom. The same technology that allows cameras to provide unobtrusive coverage of court proceedings also allowed ABC to conduct an undercover investigation of the Food Lion supermarket's meat handling practice. The report, which ended up as the center of a lawsuit, exposed unsanitary business practices and questionable ethics on behalf of the reporters.

Government authorities sought prior restraint, a judicial order to stop the publication of a story or image, in Near v. Minnesota and the Pentagon Papers cases. Like the Pentagon Papers story, the article that raised controversy in The Progressive case became so widespread, it became impossible to restrain or diffuse. In the Hazelwood, Missouri, student newspaper free speech case, the Supreme Court ruled student newspapers were subject to censorship since they were essentially classroom exercises. For refusing to testify and name sources in the Lewis “Scooter” Libby case, Matt Cooper and Judith Miller faced severe penalties and jail time, before being let out of their oath by Libby himself.

Roth v United States and Miller v. California established that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity. The Supreme Court returned the role of defining obscenity to local governments and courts, along with providing some criteria that should be factored in when making that determination.

The twentieth century saw the passing of several major communication and media legislative acts: Radio Act of 1912, Radio Act of 1927, Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 formed the regulatory agencies that govern the modern media industry.

Learning Objectives

•  Know the protections provided by the First Amendment.

•  Understand the Alien and Sedition Acts and when/how they were enforced.

•  Know what libel is and the criteria necessary to prove libel, as well as the media's defenses against libel.

•  Know the participants and the outcomes of the major court cases covered in the chapter, and their contributions in shaping modern media law.

•  Know the different types of invasion of privacy and the four types of legal protection against invasion of privacy.

•  Understand journalists' need for a shield law, what they face when they decline to testify in legal proceedings, and who may or may not be covered by shield laws.

•  Understand how obscenity is defined and regulated.

•  Know the various legislative acts in U.S. history that established the media regulatory agencies.

•  Know the requirements set in place by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Review Questions

1. What criteria are required to prove libel?


2. What is actual malice? What court case established actual malice standards?

3. How does privacy law differ in Europe? Provide examples.

4. What legal action did the United States government take against CNN during United States v. Noriega.

5. What were the Supreme Court's recommendations for defining obscenity?

6. Explain the evolution of U.S. copyright law.

7. Who is responsible for media regulation in the United States?