Mass Media Final – Flashcards
Unlock all answers in this set
Unlock answersProject Jennifer and the Glomar Explorer FOIA |
Russian Submarine, CIA suppressed story of found ship = in the interest of Public Security do not have to reveal information GLOMAR PRINCIPLE |
Phillippi vs CIA
|
documents as a result were exempt from FOI request GLOMAR PRINCIPLE |
Flynt vs Rumsfeld |
Whether Hustler reporters had a First Amendment right to accompany the first wave of U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. = no embedded right, and access to battlefield were reasonable time, place, and manner |
United States vs Marchetti continued with Knopf vs Colby |
Author of CIA book, CIA wanted secret info suppressed = book published with many blanked out parts |
Agee vs CIA |
Published book with names and addresses of CIA agents, and at least 6 assassinations resulted =US revoked passport and said publishing secret information deemed treasonous |
Snepp vs US |
Snepp signed an agreement with the Agency that he would not publish any information during or after his term of employment relating to the Agency's activities without first obtaining Agency approval. Snepp published a book about CIA activities without review. =A lower court denied Snepp royalties from his book for his failure to secure approval and violated contract |
New York Times vs US |
claimed;executive;authority to force the;Times;to;suspend publication;of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional;freedom of the press;under the;First Amendment;was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. =The Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment DID protect the;New York Times' right to print said materials of the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censure. Government could not show severe harm or damage* |
United States vs Progressive |
Tried to prevent the Progressive newspaper from printing "secrets" about the Hydrogen even though complied from public domains SIGNIFICANCE= The court's injunction, constituting prior restraint on publication, was the first of its kind in American history. yet case was dismissed as could not prevent articles being written. |
USA Patriot Act |
Fastest piece of Legislation passed after 9/11 without knowing the details to the bill 10 sections in the act that gave greater authority to search and seizures |
Doe vs Gonzalez |
internet provider was asked for private information and was given a gag order to not disclose the situation of the national security letters =non disclosure requirement subject to strict scrutiny |
Reno vs American Civil Liberties Unions |
= lacks precision that 1st amendment requires - interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society far outweighs any benefits of censorship OVERBROAD This was the first major Supreme Court ruling regarding the regulation of materials distributed via Internet. The CDA was an attempt to protect minors from explicit material on the Internet by criminalizing the knowing transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages to any recipient under 18, yet was a hinderance to adults |
Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition |
struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech.";"California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry" By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment. None of the films the majority mentioned depicted children engaged in actual sexual activity. (Romeo ; Juliet references) |
Ashcroft vs ACLU |
protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit materials on the Internet, the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) because the statute relies on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors. ="there is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" First Amendment rights sustained |
United States vs ALA |
Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000, requiring public libraries to install internet filtering software on their computers in order to qualify for federal funding. The American Library Association and others challenged the law, claiming that it improperly required them to restrict the First Amendment rights of their patrons. As stipulated by the law, a three judge panel heard the case, and ruled unanimously that the CIPA violated the First Amendment. |
Social Networking |
No laws agains stupid websites offensive, obnoxious, insulting, school can do nothing unless pertains to a direct blatent threat |
Pornography (protected) Obscenity (not protected) Indecency |
-erotic, sexually stimulating -offensive to society -definition unsure of in court rulings |
theoretical foundations of Pornography |
emotional and physical: -cathartic, releases tension and emotion -accumulative, builds up tension until you react in real life sexually |
causal ordering |
Correlation is not causation, just because 2 things are related does not mean that it directly effected the other |
experimental methods: Presidents commission on Obscenity and Pornography |
found no negative effects in adult pornography (democratic), yet President rejected findings |
Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography |
found pornography led to crime and violence (Republican) 1. violence 2. Degradation 3. Nudity |
Hicklin 1868 |
="deprave and Corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" said nobody should read material that is sensitive to the most innocent minds looked at the content in question not as a whole, but only in part. In other words, it did not consider the questionable material in relation to whole content. |
Comstock Act 1873 |
made it illegal to send any "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. In addition to banning contraceptives, this act also banned the distribution of information on abortion for educational purposes -rid all bad influences |
Roth vs United States 1957 |
Landmark case, redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. =Congress could ban material, "utterly without redeeming social importance," or in other words, "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest." |
Ginzburg vs United States 1966 |
Court held that although circulars themselves may not be obscene, their public mailing offends the federal obscenity statute if they advertise obscene materials. The Court reasoned that where the sole emphasis of an advertisement is the commercial exploitation of erotica for prurient appeal, it shall be deemed "pornographic" communication that lies beyond the scope of First Amendment speech protections. =obscene in the context of their production, sale, and attendant publicity, PANDERING, Evidence that the petitioners deliberately represented the accused publications as erotically arousing and commercially exploited them as erotica solely for the sake of prurient appeal |
Memoirs vs Massachusetts 1966 |
proceedings against an "obscene" book, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure. =The Court held that the Massachusetts courts erred in finding Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure to be obscene. The Court, applying the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States, held that the book was not "utterly without redeeming social value." The Court reaffirmed that books could not be deemed obscene unless they were unqualifiedly worthless, even if the books possessed prurient appeal and were "patently offensive." |
Miller vs California 1973 |
involves what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material CURRENT OBSCENITY TEST a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of "obscenity." = 1) offensive sexual content 2) lacks serious literary merit 3) offends local community standards |
Copyright |
Copyright gives the creator of an ORIGINAL work or idea exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication -included in the constitution, article 1 Patent: useful, application of idea Trademark: used to indicate origin of goods or services
|
Copyright Infringement Plagerism |
-unauthorized use of copyrighted materials -appropriating all or part of a composition or idea and passing them off as ones own |
Ownership |
mere ownership or possession does not confer copyright |
US Government copyright |
Works by the Government are NOT copyrighted, but works for the Government may be copyrightable by Creator |
Copyright Notice |
Since 1989, you do not need to affix a copyright notice to obtain protection, but registration allows for more recovery in the case of infringement. The copyright mark is constructive notice of copyright, therefore cannot claim innocent infringement |
Fair Use |
balances right of owners vs those who want access $ part test: 1) Purpose of use :commerical,education 2)Nature of Work: fact,fiction 3)Proportion taken in relation to work as whole:percentage of work used 4) Economic impact: no profit from use |
Transfer of Copyright |
personal property, subject to state property laws -inherited -sold
you can sign away some rights and keep others |
Baker vs Selden 1880 |
Distinguished between facts and ideas (not copyrightable) and their unique expression (copyrightable) |
International News Service vs Associated Press 1918 |
News is not copyrightable in rival competition, but its presentation is |
Teleprompter vs CBS 1968 |
cable systems do not perform the programs they receive, and therefore do not violate copyright but transmitting it |
Sony vs Universal City 1984 |
=The sale of videotape recorders is not contributory copyright infringement |
Mills Music vs Snyder 1984 |
the artist is entitled to royalty income from derivative works |
Campbell vs Acuff-Rose 1994 |
=established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. That money is made does not make it impossible for a use to be fair; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis. |
Advertising criticisms |
-persuades us to buy goods we dont need -appeals to emotion rather than intellect -biased -conflicting claims -repititious -vulgar -subliminal advertising (Wilson Bryan Key) |
False, Deceptive, and Unfair Ads |
as long as behaves in "all material aspects" like the photo, its acceptable for example picture of big mac vs the real product
Wheeler Lea Amendment- Power to regulate advertising |
Valentine vs Chrestensen 1942 |
tour of submarine flyers were creating litter and city decided to haul distribution =Supreme Court of the United States ruled that commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment |
Bigelow vs Virginia 1975 |
Pro-abortion Ads were deemed illegal =The Court held that the Virginia law infringed upon Bigelow's First Amendment rights and violated the Constitution. the advertisement in question contained important information in the "public interest" which went beyond merely informing readers of a commercial service. |
Va Pharmacy Board vs Citizens Consumer Council 1976 |
The Court noted that in cases of commercial speech, such as price advertising, freedom of speech protections apply just as they would to noncommercial speech. Even speech that is sold for profit, or involves financial solicitations, is protected. The Court concluded that although the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy has a legitimate interest in preserving professionalism among its members, it may not do so at the expense of public knowledge about lawful competitive pricing terms. |
Warner Lambert vs FTC 1977 |
listerine claimed to kill germs that led to cold, however virus is cause of cold = the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to force companies to run "corrective" advertising |
First National Bank vs Bellotti 1978 |
;=corporations had a First Amendment right to make contributions in order to attempt to influence political processes. |
LiquorMart vs Rhode Island 1996 |
Rhode Island passed a statute banning the advertisement of retail liquor prices in places where liquor is not sold =The District Court found the ban unconstitutional, noting that it did not serve any interest Rhode Island might have had in promoting temperance or an attempt to curb drunk driving |