Freedom of expression and communication ethics paper

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

Exam essay !!!!!!

Time is 9 AM EST on Oct 10th to 9 AM on Oct 11th. 24 hours to finish

There will be 2 essays and the first essay should less than 650 words and the second essay should less than 800 words

!!! Here is an example of the past essays. You need to use the examples in the note as examples to support the essay.

ESSAY QUESTION #1: Pick A or B and write up to 650 words. Support your arguments and conclusions with relevant law, values, and cases.

 A.) How does the law of copyright in the United States seek to balance free expression with the property right embodied in copyright ownership – that is the balance between owning some works and the right to create new works or new expression, the right to comment, and the right to speak freely on matters of public importance? — OR B.) What is the actual malice standard in the law of defamation and how does it balance various competing interests under the First Amendment and in defamation law in the United States? Does it strike the right balance? Should it be changed? Why or why not? If yes, how? 

ESSAY QUESTION #2: You may remember a few of these characters from the last test. They are back. Blanca Dumbshell and her very wealthy, politically connected fourth husband, Jared Bagmanov, recently moved to Florida, purchasing a palatial waterfront estate on Star Island in the City of Miami Beach. Blanca is the daughter of Adolph J. Duckface, the now-deceased leader of the Nazi-American Party Against Leftist Maniacs (NAPALM for short). Duckface made his fortune producing and selling vast quantities of pornographic videos on the Internet. He also ran and frequented brothels of this is false and Blanca has demanded that Hillary take down those comments or face litigation. Hillary and Blanca’s war of Internet words heated up recently when Blanca posted pictures and videos of Hillary, who has gained two hundred or more pounds and has not seen a gym in years. Hillary is shown sunbathing nude in Hillary’s backyard with her girlfriend and partner (who can be heard talking about a strip poker game) and also alone on a public, clothing-optional beach. The photographs and videos appear to have been taken either by a drone or with a telephoto lens. On Blanca’s most recent radio and cable talk show, she showed and described the videos and photos and several callers discussed how these photographs and videos show that Hillary is still in the closet, that her partner is probably a criminal and sadist, and that Hillary is not fit to eat at any McDonald’s. Blanca now uses one of the photos framed by Golden Arches in an ad for her diet. Hillary responded by posting a pornographic video she said was made by Blanca while Blanca was in high school and under the Candy Stump pseudonym as well as 10 minutes of a more recent pornographic video featuring Blanca, Felania Duckface, and a Michelle Obama lookalike. Hillary labeled Blanca the “deranged daughter of a Nazi murderer and pedophile.” This recent video is owned by Either Extreme Videos in Chatsworth, California. Hillary has overdubbed the sound and added subtitles showing the three of them talking about how they are duping the followers of the McDonald’s diet and making millions off these idiots. Blanca responded by posting a short JIBJAB-like cartoon showing Hillary raping teenagers, slitting their throats, and drinking their blood while wearing a Burger King Crown and eating a Burger King Whopper with extra cheese. Everyone is upset and hiring lawyers to threaten and file legal action. By everyone, I mean everyone, from Blanca to Hillary and the unnamed girlfriend to McDonald’s and Burger King to Don’s Dough, Felania, and even the real Michelle Obama. For example, Hillary has demanded time to reply to the allegations under the Fairness Doctrine and Equal time rule. The FCC is looking into the entire matter. Extreme Videos wants to sue for the use of its videotape. Several want to sue Google, Cheatcast, and WQQQ. There are more than a few criminal prosecutors looking at various postings. Even the estate of Duckface wants to sue. The only people not suing are Bagmanov and Felania who are blissfully engaged in a drug-fueled extra-marital affair and living happily in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. With reference to the topics, we have covered since the first test, identify the relevant issues and law and apply the law to the facts and issues. 

Explain your conclusions. Cite and explain relevant cases. You may write up to 800 words.

Final Review Notes

I. Commercial speech

A. Advertising vs PR

B. Realty

1. Pitt Press v. Pitt Comm’n Human Rel. (1973)

a) Case

(1) Sex-designated help-wanted classifieds

(2) Employment discrimination illegal

b) SCOTUS decision

(1) Ads for illegal acts not allowed

(2) Suggested different result for legal act

(3) Noted newspaper could editorialize against the law

Acts legal in other states

2. Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)

a) Case

(1) 1971 Charlottesville newspaper ad for legal abortion clinic in NY; Editor arrested

(2) Abortion was legal in NY but illegal in VA

(3) Virginia Supreme Court upheld conviction, describing ad as purely commercial in nature

b) SCOTUS

(1) Reversed VA decision 7-2

(2) Advertisement not stripped of all 1st Amendment protection

(3) This ad provided truthful, useful information of general interest

(4) One state cannot assert control over interstate news and publications

(5) Legal in state transaction would take place

Today’s rule

3. Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980)

a) Case

(1) Commission banned utilities from promoting use of electricity by ads in order to conserve electricity

(2) They banned all ads of this nature, including those promoting energy-efficient technology

b) SCOTUS

(1) Ban held unconstitutional

(2) Four-part test

(a) Ad must be truthful and for a legal activity

(b) Gov’t interest in regulating must be substantial

(c) Regulation must directly advance the asserted gov’t interest

(d) Regulation must be no more extensive than needed to achieve the asserted gov’t interest

C. Nike, what’s considered PR or advertising (gray area)

1. Nike v. Kasky & PR

a) Case

(1) Public Relations Campaign against Nike

From Doonesbury to opposite editorials

(2) Response by the company

Counter Campaign: Ads, letters

No Transactional Advs as part of Campaign

(3) Suit in California for false advertising

Not deceived into buying Nike products

b) Dismissal of certificate by United States Supreme Court

II. Corporate Speech

An Introduction

1st National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978): Case: invalidated Mass. Law prohibiting corps from advertising to influence voters, unless related to assets of the business

· Interest in flow of information re state graduated income tax referendum

· Outgrowth of Buckley v. Valeo (1974)

· Later laws and campaign regulations develop

· For example: a later federal law prohibited any corporation (or union) from making an “electioneering communication” (broadcast ad reaching 50,000+) w/in 30 days of a primary or 60 days of election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

a) Case

1) Conversation non-profit org. wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton & advertise it on TV shortly before the 2008 Dem. Primary.

2) The group challenged the federal regulation that prohibited such speech by a corporation that close to an election

b) SCT: The Supreme Court ruled for the group

1) Court relied on principle established in Bellotti and other cases that the Government may not suppress political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity

2) Concluded political speech, even by a corporation, is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy”

3) Court ruled that independent expenditure limits were unconstitutional because, unlike campaign contribution limits, they fail to “serve any substantial government interest in stemming the reality or appearance of corruption in the electoral process

A. When can businesses spend business money to influence politics?

1. Business can donate money to politician or cause as long as they don’t coordinate with any political campaign, etc

B. Another case, didn’t understand name

C. Citizens United

1. Allowed corporate money to come flooding into realm of political space

III. Speech by govt employees

A. Government v. Private Employees: (Public school counts as govt)

Pickering v. Board of Ed. (1968)

a) What was at stake in the public debate over the bond issues?

Two losses at the polls; teacher’s letter published

b) SCT (8-1)

Public School teacher had a right to speak on
issues of public importance
without being fired unless the teacher knowingly or recklessly made false statements when he criticized school funding decisions by the board & superintendent

B. Personal Concerns v. Public Policy Concerns:

Connick v. Myers (1983)

a) Case

1) Ass’t DA strongly objected to her transfer in private conversations with her boss and the chief assistant district attorney

2) She gave a questionnaire to fellow prosecutors asking about their experience with the DA’s management practices… Fired.

b) SCT: SCT agree with firing (5-4)

Matters of personal, not public, concern…: Damaged the harmonious relations necessary for efficient operation of the office

C. Private v. Public concerns: (government as an employee?)

1. Waters v. Churchill (1994; 7-2)

a) Case

Public Hospital Nurse criticized superviosr to co-workers

b) SCT:

Not necessary to determine what the nurse said, as long as the hospital reasonably thought her remarks would disrupt operations, the firing was allowed

1) Plurality: when government acts as employer (not as a sovereign) it has a lower obligation to respect constitutional rights

2) Will this discourage whistleblowers?

3) Note: Nurse had been very local about her criticisms & management had in the past accused her of

insubordination

2. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006; 5-4)

a) Ass’t DA investigated the accuracy of a warrant affidavit: He found serious misrepresentations & strongly recommended dismissal of the prosecution in a memo and heated discussion with his boss. He was overruled & the case proceeded

(1) He was called as a defense witness in the case and so testified. Subsequently he claimed retaliation by the DA

b) SCT (5-4): rejected his claims

(1) Held he expressed himself as an employee, not as a citizen, and it related to his work-product, not public policies; therefore, no First Amendment protection

Bottom Line: Private Concern speech can be regulated as a condition of employment; and with public concern speech the courts will balance free speech interests with government efficiency/needs as employer

IV. Govt grants

A. Government funding

Rust v. Sullivan (1991; 5-4) Title X Grantee

a) Case

Congress/HHS regs prohibited use of federal grants to family planning/health care groups for any abortions or counseling about abortion. Challenged by doctors and clinics

b) SCT

(1) The restrictions did not significantly impinge on the doctor-patient relationship or 1st Amendment b/c funding recipients remain free to speak as they wish outside the scope of the Gov’t funded project.

This is not a case of the government suppressing a dangerous idea, but of a prohibition on a project grantee or its employees from engaging in activities outside of its scope.”

“The Gov’t can, without violating the Constitution, selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program….In so doing

B. When is govt using grant making power to affect voting process

1. Finley v. NEA (1998; 8-1)

a) Case: NEA established in 1965 to fund individual artists and arts organizations

b) SCT: decency standards did not necessarily violate the 1st Amendment right to free expression and not impermissibly vague

(1) …the law merely added factors to the grant-making process & did not state that all grants should be denied to applications involving indecent or disrespectful art — only required “consideration” of the factors & did not prohibit indecent art.

C. Govt speech doctrine

1. Government Speech Doctrine: government does not infringe free speech rights of individuals when it is not viewpoint neutral in its own speech

a) That is, the government is the speaker, it may make content-based choices; it can communicate an official message

b) Think Rust v. Sullivan (gov’t as the speaker), not Legal service Corp v. Velazquez (2001, 5-4) (through gov’t-funded legal services is similar to gov’t-funded doctors, the lawyers’ speech was held to be private speech b/c lawyers spoke on behalf of their clients; therefore, gov’t could not prevent the lawyers from filing constitutional suits against the gov’t).

D. Govt advertising

1. Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires… Uncle Sam Wants You…E Pluribus Unum…I Love New York…

a) Controversial v. Non-Controversial: anti-drug campaigns, social welfare programs, wars, agricultural techniques, public health…

2.
Federal government spends $1Billion or more on advertising a year!

a) Concerns? Money (power); Size matters with bullhorns; misrepresentation/manipulation of the marketplace of ideas; compelled speech by people paying that bill.

b) Beef. It’s What’s For Dinner

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Assn (2005)

(1) Case: Federal marketing of beef program assessed mandatory fee on all cattle sales to be used by the Cattlemen’s Beef Promotion and Research Board to market and promote beef sales. Attributed to “America’s Beef Producers”; challenged by one cattle producer

(2) SCT: upheld (6-3) by SCT as government speech.

Whose speech & beef?

Issue: Compelled Subsidy of Private Speech w/which some producers disagreed? 1St Amendment violation?

Held to be gov’t speech b/c Secretary of Agriculture held to have ultimate control over the message though the beef board…appoints half & can remove all

No 1st Amendment right not to fund government speech even if the funding is through targeted assessments (rather than through general taxes) for to a program to which some assessed citizens object

E. Government speech generally

1. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate veterans (2015)

a) SCT Court held LICENSE PLATES= government speech: therefore, Gov’t can regulate content (b/c not private speech under the 1st Amendment). Effectively upheld (5-4) the state’s denial of a request to create a confederate flag license plate.

2. Pleasant Grove City v. Summun (2009; 9-0)

a) Case: City allowed privately donated monuments, including one w/the 10 Commandments, on public property and then the Summun church wanted to place its own statue (similar in size) in the city park…City declined.

Held allowing some privately funded permanent monuments erected in a public park while refusing to accept others = a valid expression of governmental speech…Therefore, the rejection of the Summun monument was NOT an unconstitutional violation of 1st Amendment

Held a permanent monument is perceived by ordinary persons to be government expression, unlike temporary displays or even long-winded speakers at rallies in public parks.

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net