media law final

FOIA

gives the public the right to request and access records from any federal agency. nine exemptions

NC state shield law

protects journalists from being compelled to disclose sources and other information during news reporting.

exception to nc state shield law

eyewitness observation of any crimes or torts

lanham act (1946)

primary law for trademarks and unfair competition

branzburg v hayes (1972)

landmark decision for invalidating the 1st amendment as defense for reporters summoned to testify before grand jury. reporters lost 5-4 decision. state shield laws made after

NYT v. Sullivan (1964)

case that established actual malice standard. arose from 1960 ad “heed their rising voices”. sullivan won

bryant v cox enterprises

security guard suspected of planting pipe bomb

zacchini v. scripps howard (1977)

performed “human cannonball” act, where he was shot from a net 200 feet away. a free-lance reporter recorded the performance in its entirety without consent and it aired on the nightly news. in 5-4 opinion, court ruled that scripps howard did not extend to broadcasting whole performace

dietemann v. time (1971)

two life magazine reporters were working with law enforcement to investigate an amateur “healer” who practiced outside his home. reporters pretended to be patients and recorded him secretly. court ruled in favor of “healer” because reporters invaded privacy 

cantrell v forest city publishing (1974)

invasion of privacy claim against a newspaper for publishing a false-light article about family after father died in bridge collapse. court held that evidence was sufficient knowing or reckless falsehoods

sidis v. fr publishing (1940)

child prodigy that became a recluse had a profile published titled “where are they now” that portrayed him unflatteringly. court ruled in favor of publisher because he was still a public figure.

valentine v. chrestensen (1942)

politcal protest to get around new york rule of no commercial advertising handbills for paid tour of WWI Navy submarine. argued this violated first amendment rights. court held that commercial advertising is not protected by first amendment 

bigelow v. virginia (1975)

Issue:
Can a state ban advertisements for legal services offered in another state?

Facts:
A Virginia newspaper editor published an ad for a legal abortion clinic in New York. Virginia had a law banning abortion ads, and he was convicted.

Holding (Ruling):
No. The First Amendment protects advertisements that provide truthful information about legal services.

Key Principle:
Not all advertising is purely commercial—some ads convey information of public interest. States cannot suppress truthful information about legal services available elsewhere.

Importance:
This case weakened the old rule from Valentine and opened the door to modern First Amendment protection for commercial speech.

bolger v. young drug products (1983)

ssue:
Are informational pamphlets about contraceptives considered “commercial speech,” and can the government ban them?

Facts:
Youngs Drug Products mailed pamphlets about condoms (disease prevention, contraception). The government banned unsolicited contraceptive ads through the mail.

Holding:
Yes, the pamphlets count as commercial speech, but No, the government cannot ban them.

Key Principle:
Speech that:

1. Is an ad,

2. References a specific product, and

3. Has an economic motivation
   → counts as commercial speech.

Importance:
This case strengthened protection for truthful, non-misleading commercial speech and limited government restrictions on distributing contraceptive information.

hudson v. public service commission (1980)

Issue:
When can the government regulate commercial speech?

Facts:
During an energy shortage, New York banned utility companies (like Central Hudson) from promotional advertising to reduce energy use. Central Hudson challenged it.

Holding:
The ban violated the First Amendment.

Key Principle — Central Hudson Test (4 steps):

1. Is the speech lawful and not misleading?

2. Does the government have a substantial interest?

3. Does the regulation directly advance that interest?

4. Is it narrowly tailored (not more restrictive than necessary)?

Importance:
Established the four-part test still used to judge restrictions on commercial speech.

first national bank of boston v. bellotti (1978)

Issue:
Can the government restrict corporations from spending money to influence public referendums?

Facts:
Massachusetts banned corporations from spending money to express views on ballot initiatives unrelated to their business. The Bank of Boston wanted to spend money opposing a tax referendum.

Holding:
No. The state cannot restrict corporations from speaking on public issues.

Key Principle:
The First Amendment protects corporate political speech just like individual speech.

Importance:
Established that political speech does not lose protection simply because the speaker is a corporation. Laid the groundwork for later decisions like Citizens United.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Issue:
Can the government ban corporations and unions from spending money on independent political broadcasts in elections?

Facts:
Citizens United wanted to air and promote a film critical of Hillary Clinton during an election season. A federal law (BCRA) banned corporate-funded electioneering broadcasts close to elections.

Holding:
No. The government cannot restrict independent political spending by corporations and unions.

Key Principle:
Independent expenditures (spending not coordinated with a campaign) are protected political speech under the First Amendment.

Importance:

• Allowed unlimited corporate and union spending on political advocacy.

• Led to the rise of Super PACs.

fair use test

Issue:
How do courts decide whether using copyrighted material without permission is “fair use”?

The 4 Factors:

1. Purpose and character of the use

   • Transformative? Educational? Nonprofit?

2. Nature of the copyrighted work

   • Creative vs. factual?

3. Amount and substantiality

   • How much was used, and was it the “heart” of the work?

4. Effect on the market

   • Does it harm the original’s market or potential market?

Importance:
Courts weigh all four factors—no single factor controls.

Folson v. Marsh (1841)

Issue:
What counts as an infringing use vs. acceptable use when copying parts of a work?

Facts:
A biographer copied large portions of George Washington’s letters from another author’s published collection.

Holding:
This was infringement, not fair use.

Key Principle:
Introduced the foundation of the fair use test by considering:

• purpose,

• amount taken,

• and market harm.

Importance:
The earliest major fair use case—origin of the modern 4-factor test.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Magic (1994)

Issue:
Can a commercial parody be fair use?

Facts:
2 Live Crew released a parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The copyright owner sued for infringement.

Holding:
Yes. Parody can be fair use—even when it is commercial.

Key Principle:

• Transformative use is central.

• Parody must comment on the original work.

• Commercial nature does NOT automatically defeat fair use.

Importance:
Strengthened the idea that transformative purpose is the heart of fair use.

Thaler v. Perlmutter (2024)

Issue:
Can works created entirely by AI receive U.S. copyright protection?

Facts:
Stephen Thaler tried to register artwork created by an autonomous AI (“Creativity Machine” / “SORA”). The Copyright Office rejected it.

Holding:
No. Copyright protects only works with human authorship.

Key Principle:
AI-generated works without meaningful human involvement cannot be copyrighted.

Importance:
Confirmed that the U.S. copyright system requires human creativity—not solely machine output.

Miller v. California (1973)

Issue:
What is the legal test for obscenity under the First Amendment?

Facts:
Marvin Miller sent unsolicited brochures advertising adult materials. Recipients complained, and he was convicted of distributing obscene content.

Holding:
The Court upheld his conviction and created the Miller Test for obscenity.

Key Principle — The Miller Test (3 parts):

1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find the work appeals to prurient interest?

2. Does the work depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way defined by law?

3. Does the work lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (SLAPS value)?

Importance:
Defines obscenity today; obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment.

Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)

Issue:
What counts as “patently offensive” sexual content under the Miller Test?

Facts:
A theater manager was convicted under Georgia’s obscenity law for showing the film “Carnal Knowledge.” Georgia claimed the movie was obscene.

Holding:
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction.

Key Principle:
The film was not patently offensive.
States cannot overextend the Miller Test to ban works that only contain nudity or sexual themes.

Importance:
Clarified that:

• Mere nudity or sexual content ≠ obscenity.

• Courts must apply the Miller Test correctly and narrowly

FCC v. Pacifica (1978)

Issue:
Can the government restrict indecent content on broadcast radio/TV?

Facts:
A radio station aired George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue (the “seven dirty words”). A parent complained after hearing it with his young son.

Holding:
Yes. The FCC can regulate indecent (not just obscene) speech on broadcast media.

Key Principle:
Broadcast is uniquely:

• pervasive (hard to avoid),

• accessible to children,
  so it can be regulated more strictly than other media.

Importance:
Established the FCC’s power to punish indecent broadcasts during hours when children are likely listening.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations (2009 & 2012)

Issue:
Can the FCC penalize “fleeting expletives” and brief nudity on live TV?

Facts:
Celebrities (Cher, Nicole Richie) used single, spontaneous curse words on live broadcasts. The FCC changed its policy to punish even one-time expletives. Fox argued this was unfair.

Holdings:
2009: The FCC’s policy change was not arbitrary—it was allowed.
2012: BUT the FCC failed to give broadcasters fair notice, so the penalties violated due process.

Key Principle:
The FCC can regulate fleeting expletives, but must:

• give clear notice,

• avoid vague standards.

Importance:
Reaffirmed some FCC authority but limited it by requiring predictability and fairness for broadcasters.